Karla is a recent graduate of an accredited university. Karla has just received her MBA in Finance and Accounting. Karla was an outstanding student at the university and is heavily recruited by a number of firms. ABC Partnership is an investment planning firm that makes investment for the private and public sector investors. ABC Partnership makes a strong bid to ascertain Karla services. Mr. Jones, a partner at ABC Partnership, informs Karla, that if she joins his partnership and if she does a good job, she will become a partner within five years. Mr. Jones explains to Karla, that she would come into the partnership as an agent/independent contractor. Initially she would be trained in how to secure and manage accounts. During the training period, she would receive a salary. After three months of training, Karla would then be allowed to manage the accounts on her own. It would be up to her to ascertain clients and she would also manage their accounts. Her business cards would have her name, but the contact information would be the address and phone number of the partnership. Also, Karla would have to keep them informed on her progress in securing accounts and also she would report to a partner who would evaluate her and also go over the accounts. Karla would not receive a salary, but would be paid a commission based on the number of accounts she secured. Karla would be paid once a month. Also, Karla would enter into an annual contract. During the contract period, if her performance was satisfactory, her contract would be renewed. Furthermore, if there was any confusion as to her status with the Partnership, Karla would be an “employment at will†employee. Karla signed a contract containing the aforementioned terms and conditions.
For the first two years, Karla was number one in securing accounts for the partnership. Karla received a number of commendations for her performance from her presiding partner and also from the clients. During the first two years, Karla earning exceeded all of the other independent contractor/agents of the partnership. One criticism of Karla was that she was extremely aggressive and at times had a difficult time getting along with the other independent contractor/agents. Some felt that her aggressive behavior was unbecoming of a woman.
In the third year, Karla had to do jury duty. Karla was chosen to be on a jury for a case that lasted six months. Karla was not allowed to have contact with the public during the trial. Consequently, in the third year, Karla was unable to manage the accounts. The partnership had another managing partner handle the accounts. However, during the third year, Karla earnings fell.
In the fourth and fifth year, Karla regained her top position. Again she was number one in earnings, account management and sales. However, Karla discovered some accounting irregularities in other accounts. Karla discovered that at times investments were made in the partnership name, but the funds for the investment came from accounts of clients. Karla became concerned because the funds were being misappropriated and the earnings were be diverted to the private account of the partners. Karla brought this to the attention of her managing partner and the managing partner told Karla to ignore the accounting irregularities and just do her job. Karla went through the chain of command to stop this unlawful accounting practice. Getting no results, Karla notified the SEC. The SEC notified the partnership that they were initiating an investigation. The SEC went public about the notification concerning the commencement of the investigation.
Upon being notified, the partnership suspected that Karla notified the SEC. The partners contacted a number of Karla's clients and told them that Karla was mishandling their accounts and that the clients should use another agent in the partnership. Furthermore, the partners colluded with some of the agents to make things very uncomfortable for Karla, hoping that she would resign. When Karla applied to become a partner, they denied her application. The partnership gave the following reasons:
1. Karla's poor performance in the third year, which meant that she was inconsistent.
2. Many were concerned about her aggressive behavior and mannerism.
3. She did not get along with others in the partnership.
4. Her most recent evaluation was poor and substandard and the evaluation was based on subjective criteria.
5. That there was a misleading statement in application. She stated in her application that she belonged to a number of organizations, but upon investigation, she was not a member of some of the organizations.
6. That the commendations she received was due to a bureaucratic error.
7. Karla could not work overseas because many nations had customs prohibiting women from working in certain occupations.
8. Statistically, there was a clear over representation of men to women in the organization.
9. During discovery, Karlaâ€^TMs representative found out that some of the information was inaccurate.
10. Another explanation for the action was that the partnership was getting more and more foreign clients and foreign clients prefer dealing with men.
After the denial, Karla filed an action with the EEOC. While the EEOC was doing the investigation, ABC partners made a number of statements on why she was denied the promotion. At trial, they changed they came up with different explanation on why she was denied the promotion. Furthermore, it was learned later on that there were negative comments about women in the partnership and that on many occasions there were derogatory jokes placed on the websites about women in the firm. One specific posting came from the partner that last evaluated Karla.

Question: Analyze this case applying the Civil Rights Act of 1866 as applied in 1871, sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1988.