T3p0 (❄️,❄️)

Ann Hopkins was a successful senior manager at Price Waterhouse, a major accounting firm, in the 1980s. In 1982, she was nominated for partnership but was ultimately denied the position. Feedback from her colleagues revealed that she was criticized for not conforming to traditional feminine stereotypes. Some partners suggested she could improve her chances by wearing makeup, styling her hair more traditionally, and dressing in a more stereotypically feminine manner. Feeling that these comments were discriminatory and irrelevant to her professional abilities, Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her case argued that she was denied partnership not because of her professional qualifications, but because she did not fit the firm's expectations of how a woman should look and behave. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ann Hopkins in the landmark case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The court held that employment decisions influenced by sex stereotyping violated Title VII. The ruling was significant because it recognized that discrimination based on failing to conform to gender norms is illegal.

This is Helen Hulick, a burglary witness, who caused a stir in a downtown LA courtroom by wearing slacks in 1938. Hulick was quoted in the LA Times saying, "You tell the judge I will stand on my rights. If he orders me to change into a dress I won't do it. I like slacks. They're comfortable." She returned to court 5 days later-in slacks, which really infuriated the judge. He responded: "The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure. Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It's time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct. The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to law for contempt of court." She fired back: "Listen, I've worn slacks since I was 15. I don't own a dress except a formal. If he wants me to appear in a formal gown that's okay with me. I'll come back in slacks and if he puts me in jail I hope it will help to free women forever of anti-slackism." The next day, Hulick showed up in slacks and the judge held her in contempt. She was sent to jail with a 5 day sentence.

Exclusive merch for the squad! ✨

I start a “normie” job today after being self-employed in crypto for over a year. Here’s some of the mistakes I made this cycle: 🧵👇

Where the Sea and Snow meet by Hisa.🤯❄️🌊

how i bought a crypto domain for $16, told a multi-billion dollar CEX to kick rocks, and negotiated my way from a $500 offer to selling it for half a million dollars: 🧵

Milky Way over Zion National Park by Kelly Teich.📸🌌