Syllabus (Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute)No. 97–569. Argued April 22, 1998—Decided June 26, 1998
Respondent Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesperson in one of petitioner Burlington Industries’ many divisions, allegedly because she had been subjected to constant sexual harassment by one of her supervisors, Ted Slowik. Slowik was a mid-level manager who had authority to hire and promote employees, subject to higher approval, but was not considered a policy-maker. Against a background of repeated boorish and offensive remarks and gestures allegedly made by Slowik, Ellerth places particular emphasis on three incidents where Slowik’s comments could be construed as threats to deny her tangible job benefits. Ellerth refused all of Slowik’s advances, yet suffered no tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, she never informed anyone in authority about Slowik’s conduct, despite knowing Burlington had a policy against sexual harassment. In filing this lawsuit, Ellerth alleged Burlington engaged in sexual harassment and forced her constructive discharge, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq . The District Court granted Burlington summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit en banc reversed in a decision that produced eight separate opinions and no consensus for a controlling rationale. Among other things, those opinions focused on whether Ellerth’s claim could be categorized as one of quid pro quo harassment, and on whether the standard for an employer’s liability on such a claim should be vicarious liability or negligence.
Held: Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense. Pp. 6–21.
(a) The Court assumes an important premise yet to be established: a trier of fact could find in Slowik’s remarks numerous threats to retaliate against Ellerth if she denied some sexual liberties. The threats, however, were not carried out. Cases based on carried-out threats are referred to often as “ quid pro quo” cases, as distinct from bothersome attentions or sexual remarks sufficient to create a “hostile work environment.” Those two terms do not appear in Title VII, which forbids only “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his … terms [or] conditions … of employment, because of … sex.” §2000e—2(a)(1). InMeritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U. S. 57, this Court distinguished between the two concepts, saying both are cognizable under Title VII, though a hostile environment claim requires harassment that is severe or pervasive. Meritor did not discuss the distinction for its bearing upon an employer’s liability for discrimination, but held, with no further specifics, that agency principles controlled on this point. Id ., at 72. Nevertheless, in Meritor ’s wake, Courts of Appeals held that, if the plaintiff established a quid pro quoclaim, the employer was subject to vicarious liability. This rule encouraged Title VII plaintiffs to state their claims in quid pro quo terms, which in turn put expansive pressure on the definition. For example, the question presented here is phrased as whether Ellerth can state a quid pro quo claim, but the issue of real concern to the parties is whether Burlington has vicarious liability, rather than liability limited to its own negligence. This Court nonetheless believes the two terms are of limited utility. To the extent they illustrate the distinction between cases involving a carried-out threat and offensive conduct in general, they are relevant when there is a threshold question whether a plaintiff can prove discrimination. Hence, Ellerth’s claim involves only unfulfilled threats, so it is a hostile work environment claim requiring a showing of severe or pervasive conduct. This Court accepts the District Court’s finding that Ellerth made such a showing. When discrimination is thus proved, the factors discussed below, not the categories quid pro quo and hostile work environment, control on the issue of vicarious liability. Pp. 6–9.
(b) In deciding whether an employer has vicarious liability in a case such as this, the Court turns to agency law principles, for Title VII defines the term “employer” to include “agents.” §2000e(b). Given this express direction, the Court concludes a uniform and predictable standard must be established as a matter of federal law. The Court relies on the general common law of agency, rather than on the law of any particular State. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730. The Restatement (Second) of Agency (hereinafter Restatement) is a useful beginning point, although common-law principles may not be wholly transferable to Title VII. See Meritor , supra , at 72. Pp. 9–10.
(c) A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment. Restatement §219(1). Although such torts generally may be either negligent or intentional, sexual harassment under Title VII presupposes intentional conduct. An intentional tort is within the scope of employment when actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Id., §§228(1)(c), 230. Courts of Appeals have held, however, a supervisor acting out of gender-based animus or a desire to fulfill sexual urges may be actuated by personal motives unrelated and even antithetical to the employer’s objectives. Thus, the general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within the scope of employment. Pp. 10–12.
(d) However, scope of employment is not the only basis for employer liability under agency principles. An employer is subject to liability for the torts of its employees acting outside the scope of their employment when, inter alia, the employer itself was negligent or reckless, Restatement §219(2)(b), or the employee purported to act or to speak on behalf of the employer and there was reliance upon apparent authority, or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation, id., §219(2)(d). An employer is negligent, and therefore subject to liability under §219(2)(b), if it knew or should have known about sexual harassment and failed to stop it. Negligence sets a minimum standard for Title VII liability; but Ellerth seeks to invoke the more stringent standard of vicarious liability. Section 219(2)(d) makes an employer vicariously liable for sexual harassment by an employee who uses apparent authority (the apparent authority standard), or who was “aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation” (the aided in the agency relation standard). Pp. 12–14.
(e) As a general rule, apparent authority is relevant where the agent purports to exercise a power which he or she does not have, as distinct from threatening to misuse actual power. Compare Restatement §§6 and 8. Because supervisory harassment cases involve misuse of actual power, not the false impression of its existence, apparent authority analysis is inappropriate. When a party seeks to impose vicarious liability based on an agent’s misuse of delegated authority, the Restatement’s aided in the agency relation rule provides the appropriate analysis. P. 14.
(f) That rule requires the existence of something more than the employment relation itself because, in a sense, most workplace tortfeasors, whether supervisors or co-workers, are aided in accomplishing their tortious objective by the employment relation: Proximity and regular contact afford a captive pool of potential victims. Such an additional aid exists when a supervisor subjects a subordinate to a significant, tangible employment action, i.e., a significant change in employment status, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. Every Federal Court of Appeals to have considered the question has correctly found vicarious liability in that circumstance. This Court imports the significant, tangible employment action concept for resolution of the vicarious liability issue considered here. An employer is therefore subject to vicarious liability for such actions. However, where, as here, there is no tangible employment action, it is not obvious the agency relationship aids in commission of the tort. Moreover, Meritor holds that agency principles constrain the imposition of employer liability for supervisor harassment. Limiting employer liability is also consistent with Title VII’s purpose to the extent it would encourage the creation and use of anti-harassment policies and grievance procedures. Thus, in order to accommodate the agency principle of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well as Title VII’s equally basic policies of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees, the Court adopts, in this case and in Faragher v. Boca Raton , post, p. ___, the following holding: An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc. 8(c). The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. While proof that an employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with a complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed in any case when litigating the first element of the defense. And while proof that an employee failed to fulfill the corresponding obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing any unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer, a demonstration of such failure will normally suffice to satisfy the employer’s burden under the second element of the defense. No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action. Pp. 15–20.
(g) Given the Court’s explanation that the labels quid pro quo and hostile work environment are not controlling for employer-liability purposes, Ellerth should have an adequate opportunity on remand to prove she has a claim which would result in vicarious liability. Although she has not alleged she suffered a tangible employment action at Slowik’s hands, which would deprive Burlington of the affirmative defense, this is not dispositive. In light of the Court’s decision, Burlington is still subject to vicarious liability for Slowik’s activity, but should have an opportunity to assert and prove the affirmative defense. Pp. 20–21.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.
“In a 7-to-2 opinion, the Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. In cases where harassed employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. Such a defense, however, in[S] not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s.” [OYEZ]
Burlington v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts: Kimberly B. Ellerth quit her job at Burlington due to alleged sexual harassment she endured from her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Ellerth refused Slowik’s advances, but suffered no tangible retaliation and was promoted once. Ellerth also did not report Slowik’s conduct. Ellerth sued Burlington, claiming that the company forced her into a constructive discharge, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Question: Can an employee be held liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the employee didn’t suffer a tangible employment action?
Holding: 7-2 decision; Yes.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that employers are liable for supervisors who create a hostile work environment for those they have authority over. The Court established that the defending employer may raise an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action is taken. The defense would need two elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
Burlington v. Ellerth
524 US 742 (1998)
Facts: After working for Burlington for 15 months, Kimberly Ellerth quit due to alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor. Despite her refusals to Slowik’s advances, Ellerth did not suffer any retaliation and was promoted once. Ellerth challenged Burlington, claiming the company forced her discharge, despite her never reporting Slowik’s conduct.
Issue: Can an employee, who refused sexual advances by a supervisor but suffered no job-related consequences, recover against their employer under Title VII without showing the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s conduct?
Holding: Employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those they have authority over. When harassed employees suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability, but that is not available when the harassment culminates in an employment action.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts:
Kimberly Ellerth, an employee at Burlington Industries, claimed that her supervisor repeatedly made sexually inappropriate comments and advances toward her. However, Ellerth never reported the harassment during her time at the company and was eventually promoted. She later sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.
The company argued it was not liable because Ellerth had not suffered a tangible employment action (like firing or demotion), and she had not used the company’s internal complaint procedures.
Legal Question:
Can an employer be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment even if the employee suffered no tangible job consequences, and the harassment was not reported?
Holding:
Yes. In a 7–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by supervisors that creates a hostile work environment, even when no tangible job action occurs.
Reasoning:
The Court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that a supervisor’s authority over an employee makes the employer automatically liable in certain cases of harassment. However, if there was no tangible employment action, the employer may raise an affirmative defense:
That it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and
That the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of those corrective opportunities.
Significance:
Burlington v. Ellerth was a landmark case that clarified employer liability for supervisor harassment under Title VII. It established the “Ellerth/Faragher framework”, which gave employers a possible defense but also made clear that they could be held liable even without a formal complaint or adverse job action. The ruling expanded employee protections while encouraging employers to maintain clear anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures.
Case: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth worked for Burlington Industries and claimed her supervisor made repeated, unwanted sexual advances. Although she never suffered a job-related consequence (like being fired or demoted), she eventually quit and sued for sexual harassment under Title VII, arguing the company was liable for her supervisor’s behavior.
Issue: Can an employer be held liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the employee didn’t suffer a tangible employment action?
Rule: Under Title VII, employers can be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s harassment even if there’s no tangible job consequence, but they may raise an affirmative defense by showing (1) they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of those preventive or corrective opportunities.
Analysis: The Court drew a line between harassment that results in a tangible job action (like firing) and harassment that doesn’t. In cases without a tangible employment action, employers still bear responsibility, but they can defend themselves by showing they tried to prevent harassment and the employee didn’t report it.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ellerth, saying employers are still liable for supervisors’ actions even without tangible consequences, but they can potentially avoid liability if they meet the requirements of the affirmative defense.
Facts:
Kimberly Ellerth, an employee at Burlington Industries, claimed her supervisor made repeated sexually inappropriate comments and advances, though he never retaliated when she refused. She did not report the harassment while employed but later sued for sexual harassment under Title VII after resigning.
Issue:
Can an employer be held liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the employee did not suffer a tangible job detriment and did not report the harassment?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that an employer can be vicariously liable for a supervisor’s harassment even if the employee suffered no tangible employment action
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) Facts: An employee claimed her supervisor made repeated sexual advances but she never suffered a tangible job consequence. issue: Can an employer be liable under Title VII for harassment by a supervisor even without tangible job action? Decision: Yes.
Burlington v. Ellerth, 1998
510 US 17 (1993)
Facts: Kimberly Elith was a salesperson for Burlington Industries. After 15 months, she quit due to suffering constant sexual harassment by her supervisor. Kimberly did not suffer tangible harm due to the sexual advances. She did not speak out against her manager.
Issue: Can an employee sue an employer under Title VII of the CRA without needing to show that the employer was responsible for the harassment committed by the supervisor?
Decision: Yes
Reasoning per Kennedy: Employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working environments. IN this instance, Kimberly suffered consequences. The court notes that it’s part of an employer’s duty to prevent harassment and ensure adequate resources are provided to individuals to avoid such situations. Because these steps were not taken, Title VII was violated.
Voting Coalition 7-2
Summary: Employers are responsible for supervisor’s harassment
Title: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth worked as a sales representative at Burlington Industries and claimed that her supervisor, Ted Slowik, repeatedly made inappropriate sexual remarks and advances toward her. Although Ellerth was never demoted, fired, or otherwise penalized in her job, she argued that Slowik’s conduct created a hostile work environment and that Burlington Industries should be held responsible for his actions.
Question: Can an employer be held responsible for a supervisor’s sexual harassment, even if the employee did not experience a direct negative job action?
Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously decided that employers can be vicariously liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment, even if there is no tangible employment action, such as firing or demotion.
Reasoning: The Court explained that when a supervisor’s harassment creates a hostile work environment, the employer is automatically liable unless it can prove an affirmative defense. To do so, the employer must show it took reasonable steps to prevent and promptly address harassment, and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the company’s complaint procedures or other preventive measures. This ruling encourages employers to maintain effective anti-harassment policies and respond quickly to complaints, while also recognizing that employees may sometimes have valid reasons for not reporting harassment, especially if the reporting process involves the harasser. As a result, Burlington Industries could be found liable for the harassment Ellerth experienced, even though she did not suffer a tangible job consequence.
Burlington v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts: Mechelle Ellerth worked for Burlington Industries, Inc., and was employed in a position where she reported to her supervisor, Theodore N. Redd. During her time at the company, Redd made unwelcome sexual advances towards her, including suggestive comments and unwanted physical contact. Although Ellerth never formally complained about the harassment or suffered tangible job consequences, she eventually filed a lawsuit against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming she was sexually harassed by Redd.
Question: Can an employer be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor if the employee does not suffer a tangible employment action (such as termination or demotion) and fails to report the harassment?
Holding: Yes, an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor even if no tangible employment action was taken, but the employer can raise an affirmative defense if it can prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment, and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that an employer can be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment under Title VII, regardless of whether the employee suffers a tangible employment action. However, the Court created an affirmative defense for employers, which applies if the employer can prove two elements: (1) that it took reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment (such as a clear anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure) and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of these preventive or corrective measures. The Court found that Ellerth had not used the company’s complaint system and had not suffered tangible harm, but emphasized that employers are still responsible for their employees’ behavior.
NAME & LEGAL CITATION
Burlington v. Ellerth
524 US 742 (1998)
FACTS
Ellerth quit working at Burlington because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor, Slowik. Despite her refusal of Slowik’s advances, Ellerth did not suffer any retaliation and even was promoted once. While Ellerth remained silent of Slowik’s conduct despite Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment, Ellerth claimed that Burlington forced her constructive discharge.
QUESTION
Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
HOLDING
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority.
REASONING
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion. The Court reasoned that in cases where the employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they acted quickly to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. The Court noted that a defense however is not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s case.
I. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
II. 510 U.S. 17 (1993)
III. Facts: Kimberly Ellerth quit after 15 months of sexual harassment by Supervisor Ted Slowik- despite her refusals, Ellerth did not suffer tangible realiation and was promoted once. She remained silent about Slowik’s conduct despite Burlington’s anti sexual harassment policy.
IV. Issue: Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
V. Ruling: No (7-2), ruling in favor of the Ellerth.
VI. Reasoning, per Kennedy: Employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions. Employers may defend themselves in cases where employees suffer no job-related consequences by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct that behavior by the supervisor- but that was not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action such as Ellerth’s.
IX. Summary: Employees can recover against an employer even without adverse job-related consequences.
Burlington v. Ellerth
524 US 742 (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesperson for Burlington Industries because she allegedly suffered constant sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Slowik was a mid level manager who had authority to hire and promote employees, subject to higher approval, but was not considered a policymaker. Despite her refusals of Slowik’s advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was promoted once. Ellerth remained silent about Slowik’s sexual harassment despite her knowledge of Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment. Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her constructive discharge.
Legal Question: Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, sue an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
Decision: Yes
Reasoning of Court: per Kennedy. The Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense. Employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection
Voting Coalitions: (7 to 2). For the majority, Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Dissenting, Scalia, Thomas.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Citation: 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Issue: Is an employer liable under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor when the employee suffered no tangible employment action?
Holding: Yes, but the employer may raise an affirmative defense if they exercised reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to report it.
Significance: Defined vicarious liability for employers in cases of supervisor harassment.
I. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
II. 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
III. Issue(s): Whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor?
IV. Facts: Kimberly Ellerth, a saleswoman, alleged that her supervisor at Burlington Industries, Inc., subjected her to sexual harassment. She claimed that the supervisor made unwanted sexual advances and comments but didn’t suffer any tangible job consequences as a result of rejecting these advances. Ellerth did not report the harassment to higher management due to fear of retaliation.
V. Voting: unanimous.
VI. Reasoning: Court held that employers can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the harassed employee did not experience tangible employment action, such as demotion or termination. However, the Court also established an affirmative defense for employers if they can show that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
I. Title and Citation: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 524 US 742 (1998)
II. Facts: Kimberly B. Ellerth quit 15 months after working at Burlington Industries due to allegedly suffering sexual harassment by her supervisor Ted Slowik. Despite her refusals, she was promoted. She remained silent despite her knowledge of the company’s SA policies
III. Legal Question(s): Can an employee recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 without proof?
IV. Holding: Yes
VI. Opinions:
Concurring Opinion: Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter, Justice Breyer, and Justice Ginsburg
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia
Case Name: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth worked as a salesperson for Burlington Industries. She alleged that her supervisor, Ted Slowik, subjected her to sexual harassment, including unwelcome sexual advances and comments. Ellerth did not suffer any tangible employment action, such as demotion or termination, due to the harassment. However, she claimed that the harassment created a hostile work environment and that Burlington Industries should be liable.
Legal Question: Can an employer be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor that does not result in tangible employment action?
Holding: Unanimous decision. SC held that an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if it does not result in tangible employment action.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that when a supervisor engages in sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment, the employer is strictly liable unless it can establish an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense requires the employer to show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. The Court emphasized that holding employers liable for supervisor harassment without tangible employment action encourages them to prevent and promptly address sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, the Court concluded that Burlington Industries could be held liable for the sexual harassment experienced by Ellerth.
Title and Citation:
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
524 US 742 1998
Statement of Facts:
After working for Burlington Industries for 15 months, Kimberly B. Ellerth quit because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor – Ted Slowik.
Despite her refusals of Slowik’s advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, while she remained silent about Slowik’s conduct despite her knowledge of Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment, Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her constructive discharge.
Legal Questions:
Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
Holding:
Yes, in a 7-2 decision.
Reasoning:
The Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. In cases where harassed employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. Such a defense, however, in not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s.
Dissenting Opinions:
Title: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth was a salesperson for Burlington Industries, a large textile company. During her employment, she alleged that her supervisor, Ted Slowik, made unwanted sexual advances towards her. Although she did not suffer any tangible job detriment as a result of the harassment, she claimed that the harassment created a hostile work environment. Ellerth did not report Slowik’s behavior to the company’s management but continued to work under his supervision.
Question: Can an employer be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment of an employee when the harassment does not result in physical job danger to the employee and the employee does not report the harassment to the employer?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that an employer can be held vicariously liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment of an employee, even if the harassment does not result in danger to the employee and the employee does not report the harassment to the employer. However, the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability by showing that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
Significance: Burlington v. Ellerth clarified the legal standard for employer liability in cases of sexual harassment by supervisors. It established that employers can be held responsible for the actions of their supervisors, even in cases where the harassment does not result in tangible job detriment to the employee, provided that the employer did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct such behavior.
I. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
1. Facts:
Kimberly Ellerth worked as a salesperson for Burlington Industries from March 1993 to May 1994. During her employment, she alleges that her supervisor, Ted Slowik, subjected her to constant sexual harassment, including making offensive remarks and threats to deny her tangible job benefits if she did not comply with his sexual demands. Ellerth did not suffer any tangible employment action, but she eventually quit, claiming constructive discharge due to Slowik’s behavior. Ellerth did not inform anyone in authority about Slowik’s conduct, despite Burlington having a policy against sexual harassment.
2. Issues:
– Whether an employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor’s hostile work environment harassment when no tangible employment action was taken against the employee.
3. Holding:
Yes
4. Rationale
Traditional agency principles should govern the issue of employer liability for supervisor harassment. When a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against an employee, the employer is vicariously liable. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer can raise an affirmative defense to liability by proving: (a) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
5. Judgment:
Affirmed.
Title: Title: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Facts: In her motion against Burlington Industries, Kimberly Ellerth brought forth constant sex harassment allegations by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Nevertheless, while she turned down Slowik’s advancements, he did not stand in her way, and Ellerth was promoted once. Despite understanding Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment, she did not report Slowik’s actions and later brought a case against the company, claiming constructive dismissal under Title VII.
Issues: Can an employee who refuses sexual harassment from a supervisor but faces no job-related penalties sue their company under Title VII without proving employer liability for the supervisor’s actions?
Decisions and Action: The Supreme Court, by means of the employer vicariously liable for supervisory harassment and for creating harassment in the workplace, made it possible to enunciate a guideline that “if the employer prompts to do actions to prevent and correct the harassing behavior and the harassed employee, without having a reason, refuses the use of employer-provided protection, the affirmative defense can be taken as a defense.” This is a very dated defense that does not cover the situations when harassment leads to actionable employment situations.
Rationale: Title VII specifies such forms of discrimination that the employer cannot in any way be the reason that there is discrimination on employment terms. The Court distinguished quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, declaring that employers will be (not be) liable if they affirmatively show that the former was a result of their actions.
Concurring Opinion: Justice Ginsburg affirmed while highlighting the significance of solving workplace sexual harassment and employers’ duty to create a safe working environment.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thomas dissented and criticized the imposition of onerous liabilities on employers and stepped away from traditional rules on agency legality.
Voting Coalition: The majority included Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, O’Connor,
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer. Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented.
Summary and Legal Principle: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth established employers’
vicarious liability for supervisors creating hostile work environments. It clarified the affirmative
defense requiring prompt corrective action and the employee’s unjustifiable failure to use provided
preventive or corrective measures. The decision reinforced the significance of proactive measures
by employers to prevent and address workplace sexual harassment.
Ellerth, a salesperson for Burlington Industries, left after 15 months because her supervisor sexually assaulted her. Her supervisor would frequently make nasty comments about denying her job benefits, such as promotions. She declined her supervisor’s advances, faced no punishment, and was promoted once. Ellerth sued, claiming that the business coerced her constructive discharge, a violation of Title VII. The Court determined that employers are responsible for supervisors who create hostile work environments.
– Legal Citation: 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
– Statement of Facts:
• After working for Burlington Industries for 15 months, Kimberly B. Ellerth quit because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor – Ted Slowik. Despite her refusals of Slowik’s advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, while she remained silent about Slowik’s conduct despite her knowledge of Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment, Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her constructive discharge
– Statement of Issues:
• Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
– Decision:
• Yes, the Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority.
– Reasoning:
• In cases where harassed employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. Such a defense, however, in not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s
– Concurring Opinions:
• Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Breyer joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
– Dissenting Opinions:
• Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.
– Voting Coalition: 7-2 for Ellerth
Case Name: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth resigned from her position at Burlington Industries after enduring constant sexual harassment from her supervisor, Ted Slowik, over a period of 15 months. Slowik, a mid-level manager, allegedly made unwanted advances and threatened to withhold job benefits from Ellerth. Despite her refusal of his advances, Ellerth faced no retaliation from Burlington. She received a promotion during her tenure but never reported Slowik’s behavior.
Question: Is an employee able to hold an employer liable under Title VII for sexual harassment perpetrated by a supervisor without demonstrating that the employer was aware of or complicit in the supervisor’s actions?
Court Holding: The decision favored Ellerth by a vote of 7-2.
Court Opinion: The Court established that employers can be held liable for the actions of supervisors who create a hostile work environment for subordinates under their authority. Even in cases where the employee does not suffer tangible employment actions, such as demotion or termination, employers are still accountable for the supervisor’s harassment. This liability arises from the supervisor’s position of authority and the employer’s failure to prevent or address the harassment.
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Rule of Law: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., an employer may be vicariously liable for discriminatory harassment committed by its agents.
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth was a salesperson for Burlington Industries, Inc. (Burlington) from March 1993 to May 1994. Ellerth worked with her immediate supervisor in Burlington’s Chicago office. Ellerth’s supervisor answered to Ted Slowik, a mid-level manager working out of New York. Throughout Ellerth’s time at Burlington, Slowik frequently made sexist and sexually demeaning comments to Ellerth. Slowik’s conduct included remarks Ellerth interpreted as threats to deny her advancement opportunities within the company. Ellerth applied for and received a promotion, but Slowik continued to make sexist, offensive comments. Ellerth never reported Slowik’s behavior. Ellerth subsequently quit her job, citing reasons unrelated to Slowik’s alleged harassment, but weeks later she sent Burlington a letter identifying Slowik’s offensive conduct as the reason she left. Ellerth sued Burlington under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging the company was vicariously liable for Slowik’s unlawful sexual harassment.
Issue: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., may an employer be vicariously liable for discriminatory harassment committed by its agents?
Holding: Yes. Under Title VII, an employer may be vicariously liable for discriminatory harassment committed by its agents. An employer is generally not liable for the negligent or intentional torts of its agents, unless the conduct is committed within the scope of employment. Sexual harassment committed by a supervisor is generally not considered conduct “within the scope of employment,” because a harassing supervisor typically acts upon personal motives. However, an employer may be liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment, committed outside the scope of employment, in limited circumstances. An employer may be liable if the harassment stems from the employer’s negligence, meaning the employer knew or should have known about the behavior and took no corrective measures. An employer may also be liable if the supervisor’s ability to commit the harassment was “aided by the existing agency relation.”
The Court introduced the concept of “vicarious liability” for employers in cases where a supervisor engages in sexual harassment of a subordinate. Even if the employer was not aware of the harassment, they could still be held liable. However, the Court also introduced an affirmative defense for employers. If the employer can prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer, then the employer’s liability may be reduced or eliminated.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, a landmark United States Supreme Court case from 1998 that significantly affected sexual harassment law.
Kimberly Ellerth, an employee of Burlington Industries, alleged that she had been subjected to sexually harassing behavior by her supervisor, despite never suffering any tangible negative consequences such as demotion or reduction in benefits. She also never reported the misconduct to her employer.
The main legal issue was whether an employer could be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the employee had not experienced any tangible negative effects and had not reported the behavior.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the employer was not aware of the harassment and the employee suffered no tangible employment action. However, the Court also established an affirmative defense for employers who can demonstrate that:
1. They took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior, and,
2. The plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
This case helped to further define the scope of employer liability in cases of workplace sexual harassment and reinforced the importance of having effective preventive and responsive measures in place.
Burlington v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts of the Case: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job at Burlington after working there as a salesperson for 15 months because she was constantly sexually harassed by Ted Slowik, her supervisor and mid-level manager. Ellerth claimed he made advances towards her and threatened to deny her job benefits, but she still refused and faced no retaliation. She was promoted once and never reported this conduct.
Legal Question: Can an employee recover against an employer under Title VII without proof that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
Holding: 7-2 in favor of Ellerth
Court’s Opinion: The court held that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those that they have authority over.
Kimberly Ellerth worked at Burlington for 15 months but quit due to sexual harassment from her boss Ted slowik. Despite this, she was promoted even tho she refused his advances. She also allegedly remained silent about his conduct.ellerth challenges Burlington saying that the company forced her constructive discharge. The question is if an employee who refused advances and suffers no retaliation recover against title 7, without showing that employer was responsible for supervisors harassing conduct. The SC ruled 7-2, that yes. Employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions. Moreover, in instances where employees don’t suffer any blowback, employers can protect against liability by showing harassing behavior was corrected and employers protection was not used by victim. Since the harassment culminated in employment action in this case, that was not applicable.
1. Name or title of case:
Burlington v. Ellerth
2. Legal Citation:
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
3. Facts of the case:
Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesperson in Burlington Industries’ many divisions, had been subjected to constant sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik, a mid-level manager who employed and gave promotions to higher approval but not a policy-maker. Ellerth refused all Slowik advances, yet suffered but was promoted once. Moreover, she never informed anyone in authority about Slowik’s conduct, despite knowing Burlington had a policy against sexual harassment. Ellerth alleged Burlington engaged in sexual harassment and forced her constructive discharge, in violation of Title VII.
4. Legal Question:
Whether an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor, recovers against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
5. Decision and Action:
Court in favor of Ellerth held Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense.
6. Court Opinion:
Justice Kennedy stated the two labels quid pro quo and hostile work environment are relevant when there is a threshold question whether the plaintiff can prove discrimination; the two labels are NOT controlling for purposes of establishing employer liability
7. Summary;
The court established employers to be liable for sexual harassment even if harrased employee did not suffer employment consequences.
This case is important because it establishes that employers are liable for employees who sexually harass subordinates under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, even if the harassed employee does not suffer any negative consequences from their employment.
A step in the right direction towards holding employees liable for keeping a good work environment, and supporting their employees in cases of sexual harassment.
That dealt with the issue of employer liability for workplace sexual harassment. In this case, the plaintiff, Kimberly Ellerth, accused her supervisor, Ted Slowik, of sexually harassing her at work
Ellerth, who worked as a salesperson for Burlington Industries, quit her job after 15 months because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor. Her supervisor would also make remarks that would be threatening in terms of denying her job benefits like promotions. She denied her supervisors advances and suffered no retaliation and was promoted once. Ellerth sued alleging that the company forced her constructive discharge, which is a violation of Title 7. The Court ruled that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working environments.
Kimberly Ellerth, a woman who worked at Burlington Industries, filed a lawsuit against the firm because her male supervisor engaged in sexual harassment toward her. She said that the vice president of sales had made cruel comments and inappropriate approaches toward her. She discovered three instances in which sexual favors were required in exchange for legitimate employment benefits. She claimed that a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had occurred. Because she had not really lost her employment as a result of it, the lower court dismissed her complaint.
Ellerth quit after experiencing sexual harassment by her supervisor. Despite his advances and her refusal, she was promoted and did not suffer any retaliation because of the refusal. Therefore, the question before the court was whether an employee who suffers no adverse consequences recover against an employer under Title VII of the CRA without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassment. Yes, in a 7-2 opinion, the court held that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile environments over those under them. In cases when the harassed employees suffer no consequences, the employer must show that they acted quickly and appropriately. This is not so for something like Ellerth’s case, though.
Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct? Yes. The Court says ” employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those they have authority over. “
This case is focused on whether or not an employee who is sexually harassed but faces no adversity in moving forward in the job and does not report the behavior can sue under title VII for feeling the need to eventually quit the job. Typing it out this way makes me feel ridiculous because I don’t believe harassment and promotions are mutually exclusive, nor is not reporting inappropriate behavior uncommon amongst people who have been harassed. The Court rules for Ellerth.
Kimberly B. Ellerth quit her job at Burlington Industries because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor. Ellerth did not suffer any retaliation and was actually promoted once. Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her to quit. The Court held that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for their employees.
Kimberly Ellerth, a female employee at Burlington Industries, sued the company for sexual harassment on the part of her male supervisor. She alleged the vice president of sales made offensive remarks and unwanted overtures. She identified three episodes involving threats to deny tangible job benefits unless sexual favors were granted. She alleged a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lower court dismissed her claim, noting that she had suffered no actual negative job consequences.
Hostile work environment for women have always existed, however, who dares to accuse the harasser receives more harassment and her working hours are reduced. Then, is better stay quiet and experience harassment? What are the solutions for this problem that women face every day?
In Burlington V. Ellerth, Ellerth quit her job at Burlington Industries after dealing with the alleged sexual harassment of her supervisor. Her job (in regards to position and status) was never adversely impacted, and she was promoted during the time she was experiencing the harassment. Ellerth challenged Burlington in Court for basically being the cause of her feeling the need to quit her job, despite not having had her job-related responsibilities affected. SCOTUS holds in a 7-to-2 decision that employers (in this case Burlington) are responsible for maintaining a safe working environment, and in order to avoid liability they must be able to prove that they took the preventative measures necessary to protect their employees (in this case Ellerth).
The main premise of this case is to determine whether an employee driven to quit after enduring sexual harassment at work can sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kimberly Ellerth was sexually harassed by her boss, Ted Slowiak for the fifteen months that she worked for Burlington Industry, Inc. The case reached the US Supreme Court which in a 7-2 decision ruled in favor of Ellerth. The Court argued that employers are liable for supervisors creating hostile working conditions for employees who are under their authority. The only way the company could be found not liable is if they can demonstrate that they took quick and swift action to prevent and correct the behavior. This was not the case in Burlington v Ellerth, the Court saw this as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, hence UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In its ruling, the Court established the principle of employer liability for sexual harassment, even in cases where the victim does not suffer tangible job consequences, such as firing or demotion. The Court also established a framework for determining employer liability in cases of sexual harassment, which considers the nature of the harassment, the degree of control the supervisor had over the victim, and the actions taken by the employer to prevent and address the harassment. The decision in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth was a significant moment in the fight against sexual harassment in the workplace. It helped to establish the legal precedent that employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees in cases of sexual harassment. The decision also paved the way for further legal and social changes aimed at promoting gender equality and preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
In this case, Kimberly Ellerth left her job with Burlington Industries because of sexual harassment that she experienced from her supervisor Ted Slowik. She did not initially report this harassment and later went on to sue the employer, Burlington Industries, for her having to leave. The Court ruled in her favor, claiming that the employer itself is to be held accountable for the actions of its employees, especially those in a higher position over others. In this case, Burlington is responsible for Slowik’s actions against Ellerth, and subsequently are responsible for Ellerth having to leave due to the hostile work environment.
In this case, Ellerth had quit her job at Burlington Industries because of sexual harassment but did not report his behavior and she sued the company. The court decided that employers are liable for their employees who create hostile conditions for those they have authority over. The decision allowed employees to avoid showing their employer was responsible for the authority-holding employee’s discriminatory actions.
Desiree EstradaMay 4, 2021
In this case the question is can an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances, who does not suffer tangible consequences recover under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Burlington v. Ellerth, Ellerth had worked for her employer’s (Burlington) until she quit after her 15 months there due to Slotwik (supervisor’s) relentless sexual harassment. Despite the lack of tangible job consequences employers should be held liable for their supervisors.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Matt Springer
Matt SpringerApr 30, 2021
In Burlington v. Ellerth (1998), Kimberly B. Ellerth quit working at Burlington Industries after a year because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. Despite her refusals of Slowik’s advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, while she remained silent about Slowik’s conduct despite her knowledge of Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment. The CQ of this case is Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct? The Court voted Yes, in a seven to two, because they held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Grace Castillo Rojo Moreno
Grace Castillo Rojo MorenoApr 27, 2021
I agree with the ruling because employers are responsible for their own supervisors actions towards their employees especially if they are creating a hostile environment. On the other hand, these supervisors should also take responsibility of their actions even more that the own company.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ben Lee
Ben LeeApr 22, 2021
The Court found that Corporations are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees when it relates to sexual harassment claims. However, corporations may divorce liability if they have reasonable preventative measures reporting systems for sexual assault, and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of these measures.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Ana Al Saad
Ana Al SaadApr 16, 2021
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that employers are liable for supervisors who create a hostile environment. It is the employers responsibility to protect their employees and if they fail to do so, they should be held accountable.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Catherine Ortega
Catherine OrtegaApr 15, 2021
The EEOC’s “knew or should have known” standard to determine employer liability seems fair to me. It allows the people who didn’t report inappropriate behavior before quitting to have a solid chance at convicting their abusers. This is one of those cases in which it’s a slippery slope with no one to bear witness to abuses, which is why I believe that the Court refrained from ruling her case, rather that they cleared up some uncertainty for the lower court to make a better judgement. They took the opportunity to make strict guidelines for how employer liability would be determines in a variety of cases concerning sexual harrassment in the workplace.
A couple of the things that the Court cleared up is what would account as employer responsibility over a similar situation. First, if a superior is the abuser then they have the ability to use company authority to threaten the position of the victim in question. If the superior does use their position of power to enact quid pro quo then the employer assumes liability. BUT, the employer can avoid liability if they either took steps to stop the harrassment, or if the plaintiff failed to use the resources available to them.. Due to the fact that the plaintiff in the case failed to make a complaint, the Court sent this ruling down to the lower court to handle it accordingly.
There was something to do with “Affirmative Defense” which I believe are the steps that the employer could take to plead their case and avoid liability.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Nizar Quafisheh
Nizar QuafishehApr 15, 2021
I think it is definitely important for employers to be held liable for the actions of their supervisors and other employees, and they also have the responsibility to believe the victims who go to them and report such incidents. Therefore I agree with the SCOTUS ruling, as understanding that it is employers who have the most power in this situation, it should be their responsibility to use that power to protect their employees.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Brianna Moling
Brianna MolingApr 15, 2021
In this case the Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those whom they supervise. I agree with this ruling because employers should be responsible for the actions of the supervisors they are hiring and whether their actions are appropriate or whether they are creating a hostile environment.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Emma Floyd
Emma FloydApr 14, 2021
In this case, the Court held that employers are liable for supervisors or other agents of authority within a company acting to create a hostile environment. Supervisors are empowered by the company, and, therefore, actions taken by the supervisor are actions taken by the company. I completely agree with the Court. It is the responsibility of the company to empower people who aren’t going to sexually harass other employees. Otherwise they are just enablers.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Denice Bernal Dominguez
Denice Bernal DominguezApr 14, 2021
This case brings up the concept of vicarious liability. Even though the plaintiff was promoted the working conditions must have been so unbearable that she had to quit. The negligence of the company allowed the behavior of their supervisors go on which lead the work environment that surrounded the Plaintiff. Now a day’s whenever we a person gets hired they have to go through a sex harassments prevention course. This is important in order to protect the rights of all the employees to have a safe environment.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tanmayi Kadamuddi
Tanmayi KadamuddiApr 14, 2021
Really like that employers are being held accountable here! Employers are responsible for hiring and thus liable for supervisors that create hostile work environments.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Arnold Brown
Arnold BrownApr 14, 2021
The court ruled that the employer can be subject to liability to a employee experiencing sexual harassment. The employers are liable for the supervisors as they have created hostile working conditions, however, if the victim has suffered no job-related consequences employers can defend themselves.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Krystal Garcia Centeno
Krystal Garcia CentenoApr 14, 2021
Holding compnaies accountable to sexual harassment and discrimination within thier workplace is so so important!!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jeff Gemini
Jeff GeminiApr 14, 2021
Establishing this leads to employers taking more serious action in the workplace environment to prevent hostile work environments since they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences as well as the person responsible. Still rampant sexism and sexual harassment plagues some industries like the videogame development industry.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Anastasia Pogrebchtchikov
Anastasia PogrebchtchikovApr 14, 2021
The court ruled that it was in fact the employers responsibility to provide a safe environment that would make the employees comfortable. Even if the supervisor did not make any attempts of sexual contact, the employee still felt threatened by the supervisors actions. As Tina mentioned below, many victims do not report their sexual harassment due to the fact that they may not be believed. Especially in this situation where the person sexual harassing her was her superior.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jacqueline Harmon
Jacqueline HarmonApr 14, 2021
Her work environment seemed so toxic, even enough that she quit. A company is responsible for how they handle reports of sexual harassment and what is done for the victims. I know I have experienced situations like these and I cannot imagine if my employer brushed me off.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Tina Tran
Tina TranApr 14, 2021
While I understand the attempt of the sexual harassment policy to curb sexual harassment in the workplace, I believe that Ellerth did not tell anyone because of the power dynamics involved as it was the Vice President. Often times, victims don’t report sexual harassment because of fear of not being believed or fear of being belittled. Thus, this just shows how more must be done to create an environment where those who have been sexually harassed feel comfortable stepping up and telling someone, not just creating a policy and leaving it. Moreover, I think either way, companies should be liable and held accountable for what their employers do as it is under their supervision as well.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jocelyn Rodriguez
Jocelyn RodriguezApr 13, 2021
This case not only makes another stands against sexual harassment in the workplace, it ensure to hold companies accountable. It establishes that companies are always responsible for their employee’s actions and they must ensure they are providing services and methods that will prevent and correct any harassing behavior, if they do not want to be held liable, although they can still be held liable if it leads to employment actions, like a constructive discharge.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Zuzanna Kubiszewska
Zuzanna KubiszewskaApr 12, 2021
It’s not hard to not sexually harass someone. Especially when there’s a power dynamic in place (i.e. employer and employee) there’s a lot of steps that you can take in order to make sure that you aren’t sexually harassing your employees or individuals who fall under your supervision. Just because there were no negative implications into the employment status of Burlington doesn’t mean that the work environment wasn’t toxic by any means, for which she deserves some kind of retribution and Ellerth should take accountability and ownership for forcing this dynamic to play out.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kiera Gnatz
Kiera GnatzMay 8, 2020
Regardless of the very top dog at a corporation being aware of the misconduct of subordinates, it is absolutely the company’s responsibility to make sure they are not fostering an environment that promotes or allows for hostility – I wholly agree with this ruling!
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Lupe Zamudio
Lupe ZamudioMay 8, 2020
I mean isn’t that obvious. Great job at the supreme court to have common sense brain cells. Like they hire someone who turns out to be a not so great person. Surprise, you didn’t do a background check on your employer and they turn out like trash.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userMay 8, 2020
The Court held that employers are vicariously liable for hiring management or figures of authority who create a hostile work environment. I think this is a fair ruling and incentives employers to become more vigilant, creating a no-tolerance for sexual harassment atmosphere, and protect their employees from being an hostile work place.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userMay 8, 2020
Supervisors are held liable for their employees to manage their workplace so it is a “non-hostile” work environment. A fair ruling to achieve any sort of cohesion at a workplace
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Brittany Tamayo
Brittany TamayoMay 4, 2020
I agree with others who have commented that it is the employers responsibility to make sure they prevent any type of hostile work environment. After all, they employ the supervisors, and therefore should make sure the supervisors are doing their jobs effectively and appropriately.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jessica Myles
Jessica MylesApr 29, 2020
I see why the court ruled to hold employers vicariously liable because it is there responsibility to maintain an appropriate work environment for employees. I think this policy will also incentive employers to be more vigilant about activities in the workplace and also discourage remedies, like promotions, taken place by the the employers in this case.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Jose Perez
Jose PerezApr 28, 2020
There is no way to be able to keep any one supervisor under control. An employer can provide all the training possible to ensure their supervisors adhere to what they employer specifies abut at the end of the day the supervisor will choose to take his own actions. Where the employer would be negligent is if they found out about these issues and let it happen on a regular basis.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 28, 2020
The Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority.
Vicarious Liability is something I’ve seen show up a lot in Tort law. From a legal principle point it basically means that one person is held liable for the actions of another. ex: Parents being liable for their children’s actions
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Abigail Zurita-Calvario
Abigail Zurita-CalvarioApr 27, 2020
Burlington attempted to remediate their employee’s harassment by offering her a promotion resulting in quid pro quo harassment. The company defended itself by claiming that the employee’s work was not negatively impacted, in fact she was promoted. Yet, the Court argued that the company should have attempted to remediate the harassment in another way (which could have resulted in a strong defense against liability for the company) other than through employment action such as Ellerth who was promoted.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 25, 2020
In Burlington v. Ellerth, the court held that employers are vigorously liable for supervisor who create hostile work conditions for those him they have authority. This is a step in the right direction, as the court holds the employer liable. Each of these cases are building up protection against sexual harassment. Each case is detrimental as if the ruling where to shift the opposing side; harassment laws would go back instead of progressing forward. This is extremely important for appointing future justices, especially in this current administration.
Reply
Jose Perez
Jose Perez
I can see why they hold employers automatically liable but I can also see the other side nd say that employers cannot control the actions of all their employees, supervisors included.
Apr 28, 2020•Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Marissa Scavelli
Marissa ScavelliApr 25, 2020
This case sets the standard that employers are subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for hostile environment that is created by a supervisor with another lower level employee due to sexual harassment. An employee who faces sexual harassment by a supervisor has a claim against the employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 even if that the employer was not explicitly responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct. Although if the supposedly harassed employee failed to take advantage of corrective opportunities provided by the employer, then the employer can raise an affirmative defense. So in order for a harassed employee to successfully make this claim, she or he would need to take steps to notify the employer of harassing behavior of a supervisor and if the employer essentially does nothing to correct the behavior then they are vicariously liable. In this case, Ellerth never informed her Burlington about her supervisors constant harassment even though she knew that Burlington had a policy against sexual harassment. So the Court held, “In light of the Court’s decision, Burlington is still subject to vicarious liability for Slowik’s activity, but should have an opportunity to assert and prove the affirmative defense.”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Evelyn Martinez Aguilera
Evelyn Martinez AguileraApr 23, 2020
The Court makes an important distinction between hostile work environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. It seems that in quid pro quo cases the burden of proof shifts to the employer if an employee’s employment is affected by unwelcome sexual advances by an authority figure because that action is enough in of itself to prove quid pro quo harassment. Thus, employers have the burden of proving that the harassment did not occur or that actions of behalf of their employed authority figure occurred for other reasons.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Liliana Diaz
Liliana DiazApr 23, 2020
team 6
Facts: Kimberly B. Ellerth worked at Burlington Industries for 15 months before quitting
because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor Ted Slowik. Even though Ellerth refused Slowik’s advances she was not retaliated against and was promoted once. Ellerth remained silent despite knowing about Burlington’s policy against sexual harassment — Ellerth challenged Burlington by claming that the company forced her constructive discharge.
Issue: Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor’s harassing conduct?
Holding: Yes; 7-2.
Reasoning: The Court held that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those who they have authority over. If the employee suffered no job-related consequences then the employer can defend themselves by showing that they acted quickly to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee didn’t utilize their employer’s protection — this defense is not available for Ellerth’s case i.e. when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Sylvia Waz
Sylvia WazApr 20, 2020
I agree with this ruling. It is the supervisors responsibility to ensure the well-being of their employees. The court states that they could defend themselves if there were no job related consequences, and if they provide evidence that they acted quickly, corrected any behavior, and that the harassed employee failed to use the supervisor as protection.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Liliana Diaz
Liliana DiazApr 18, 2020
The Court held that employers can be held liable for supervisors creating hostile work environments and when there is no job-related consequences employers can defend themselves against liability by showing that they “quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing”.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 22, 2019
“Kimberly Ellerth (plaintiff) was a salesperson for Burlington Industries, Inc. (Burlington) (defendant) from March 1993 to May 1994. Ellerth worked with her immediate supervisor in Burlington’s Chicago office. Ellerth’s supervisor answered to Ted Slowik, a mid-level manager working out of New York. Throughout Ellerth’s time at Burlington, Slowik frequently made sexist and sexually demeaning comments to Ellerth. Slowik’s conduct included remarks Ellerth interpreted as threats to deny her advancement opportunities within the company. Ellerth applied for and received a promotion, but Slowik continued to make sexist, offensive comments. Ellerth never reported Slowik’s behavior. Ellerth subsequently quit her job, citing reasons unrelated to Slowik’s alleged harassment, but weeks later she sent Burlington a letter identifying Slowik’s offensive conduct as the reason she left. Ellerth sued Burlington under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging the company was vicariously liable for Slowik’s unlawful sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment to Burlington, concluding that although Slowik’s conduct created a hostile work environment, Burlington was not negligent. The court of appeals reversed, and Burlington petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court.”
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/burlington-industries-inc-v-ellerth
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 17, 2019
Facts: Kimberly Ellerth worked for Burlington industries. During her time of employment, she suffered sexual harassment from her supervisor. She refused his advances and her job did not suffer. she even got promoted once. She also refused to come forward about the advances, despite knowing the sexual harassment policies of the company.
Question: Can an employee recover against an employer using Title VII of CRA of 1964, despite not having suffered any job related consequences from the harassment?
Decision: “Yes. In a 7-to-2 opinion, the Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. In cases where harassed employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. Such a defense, however, in not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s.”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 14, 2019
This case established that when there are no job-related consequences at risk, there is a defense comprising two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. http://time.com/5319966/sexual-harassment-scotus-anniversary/
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 23, 2018
I believe that a major issue with sexual harassment is that many employers delude themselves into believing what they are doing is not harassment, but flattery or banter. Defining these issues and giving clear boundaries would help to at least diminish the excuse of ignorance.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 19, 2018
“the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexual harassing behavior and that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to avoid harm otherwise.”
I feel as though this is placing the burden on the victim, many of who understandably would have a difficult time reporting harassment and seeking “corrective opportunities.”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 18, 2018
This decision appears to be a step in the right direction. To hold employers liable for creating hostile work environments is to protect employees from such instances for sexual harassment. However, how will employers address the issue if they were to go unreported?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 15, 2018
In this case, there was a clear distinction made between sexual harassment cases where the tangible job consequences are suffered or not. In cases where they are, the employer would be liable for the supervisor’s actions that resulted in tangible job consequences but in cases where tangible job consequences were not suffered by the victimized employee, the employer is vicariously liable for supervisor’s actions of creating a hostile environment but the Court discusses availability of affirmative defense.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 24, 2017
Cases like these are the prime example of why all places of employment should be required to have sexual harassment training. Not only because it will help employees defend themselves legally about unwanted advances from their supervisors, but also be a constant reminder that sexual harassment is not something that should be taken lightly at any office.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 13, 2017
“In a 7-to-2 opinion, the Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. In cases where harassed employee’s suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection. Such a defense, however, in not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth’s.”
I may be understanding this incorrectly but from my understanding this case renders the employer (Burlington) liable for harassment committed by their manager (Ted Slowik) and thus places the burden of proof on the employer to prove that they dealt with the matter quickly. This was a step in the right direction judicially towards supporting victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 12, 2017
Slides 9-11 discuss the case
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 13, 2016
I. Burlington v Ellerth
II. Facts: After 15 months of working for Burlington industries, Kimberly Ellerth decided to quit her job because she was subject to sexual harassment by a supervisor. Ted Slowik was the supervisor, Ellerth did not mention the harassment by Slowik and refused advances attempting to be made by him, it was noted as well that she was promoted once as well under his supervision. Ellerth eventually claimed that Burlington Industries engaged in sexual harassment and that the company forced her into discharge from the company.
III. Issue: was Ellerth discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, without any knowingly advising someone?
IV. Holding: Yes, in a 7-2 decision, “Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense.”
V. Opinion: the court distinguished between two types of sexual harassment cases, the “quid pro quo” that being where threats from harassment are actually carried out and retaliation can occur, and the other being hostile environment cases in which the supervisor is making remarks sexually that can be troublesome. “ employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer’s protection”
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Kevin LylesApr 22, 2015
only two comments from t3?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 13, 2015
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination so the law protects the employee, the subordinate, from her supervisor, the person in authority. I get that the employee is liable for the actions of the supervisor, yet I don’t understand why she did not document the harassment.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 11, 2015
I. Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
II. Justice Kennedy delivers the opinion, he outlines that a supervisor’s actions can be viewed as an employer’s actions because supervisor’s have powers which other co-workers do not, such as docking pay for which there is an internal structure of approval. If a supervisor is negligent then it follows that the employer is negligent. In the event of sexual harassment it is the employer’s duty to have some kind of corrective mechanism to catch it, and the employee’s duty to use it. Ellerth is an employee at Burlington’s and her supervisor (Slowik) created a “sexually hostile work enviroment”.
III. Did the court of appeals follow existing case law when it denying Ellerth the right to prove employer liability?
IV. Yes, reversed and remanded.
V. Scalia and Thomas dissent, because it makes it so that an employer can be liable even in the event that there is already a mechanism in place.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 16, 2014
Why was she “forced to quit” because of her employer’s/superior’s sexual advances? Wouldn’t it be easier to just report it to someone who’s higher up on the chain of command?
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 16, 2014
I was kind of thinking that she should have to prove negligence but I think hiring someone who sexually harasses sales people is negligent enough
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 16, 2014
Basically if a supervisor fires an employee for not accepting his/her sexual advances the company is liable even if said employee did not come forward to report the sexual harassment.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 16, 2014
The Court held that employers are liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions.
I honestly have no idea what sexual harassment means…
Negheen, T3
Reply
Deleted user
Deleted user
Whatever the Court thinks it means, obviously. Just like the law!
Steve/Scott, T3
Apr 16, 2014 (edited Apr 16, 2014)•Delete
Deleted user
Deleted user
The sass is strong in this one.
Apr 16, 2014•Delete