In Hishon v. King & Spalding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law firm's decision not to promote an associate to partner could be subject to anti-discrimination laws under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Elizabeth Anderson Hishon had been employed by King & Spalding as an associate for five years when she was denied partnership and subsequently dismissed from the firm. She filed suit alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, but her claim was initially dismissed on grounds that partnership decisions were not covered by this legislation. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that if a position like partnership is part of regular employment progression within a company (as it often is at law firms), then it falls under Title VII protections against discriminatory practices based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The court emphasized that every aspect of employment process - including promotions - should be free from discriminatory practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Hishon v. King & Spalding, Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to apply Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to partnership decisions within law firms was a significant overreach. He contended that partnerships are fundamentally different from traditional employer-employee relationships and should not be subject to the same regulations. In his view, partners share in both profits and losses, participate in management decisions, and have their reputations intertwined with those of their fellow partners - characteristics not found in typical employment scenarios. Therefore, he believed it was inappropriate for courts to interfere with internal partnership matters such as promotions or admissions unless there is clear evidence of discrimination based on race or gender.