Reflective Journal #12

The statutory modifications that Judge Daughtrey recommended in her concurring

opinion in the Simpson v. Ernst & Young case were that:

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

the law of the land.

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

will fall in the same category as other employees.

 Also, I agree with her that the historical convention that partners and owners would not

discriminate against one another is kind of outdated or at least not modern.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

right course of action to take to ensure a more just outcome.