Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
In an era of small, closely-operated partnerships, it may have been logical to conclude that an
employer/partner could not and would not discriminate in employment decisions against himself
or herself or against a close friend and business associate. In a world-wide organization like
Ernst & Young that employs almost 2200 "partners," however, the nominal co-owners of the
company are, by necessity, so far removed from the seat of actual power as to be subject to the
reach of the invidious acts that employment discrimination statutes seek to remedy. Only by
statutory modifications redefining the class of individuals to be protected from such mistreatment
can we ensure that hiring, promotion, and firing decisions are undertaken with proper regard for
This modification made by Judge Daughtrey seem very reasonable and I totally agree
with her recommendations. Moreover, she is right about how partners whom are supposed to be
co-owners are much removed from the seat of actual power. This is true because when one
goes through the list of responsibilities and privileges that are granted to partners and owners of
firms, many modern-day partners might not have such privileges in substance despite the fact
that them being designated partners would suggest that they have such privileges. A run-
through of these said privileges include; sharing in a firms profits and losses, a right to examine
a firms books and records, a right to significant management authority and many more. It is
well-known that partners in firms today might not take on these responsibilities and therefore
discriminate against one another is kind of outdated or at least not modern. Again, in todays
global market place where a firm could employ thousands of nominal co-owners and partners, it
is not possible that thousands of people will have the same level of control of an organization at
the same time and therefore even though thousands of people could be co-owners all at once in
form, in substance, a large majority of those people are mere employees because they do not
exercise the sort of controls and arent granted the sort of privileges that co-owners of firms are
bestowed with.
While, I totally agree with Judge Daughtreys recommendations, I also believe that courts
should continue to review cases such as these on a case by case basis in order to determine the