Employer vicarious liability and affirmative defenses in sexual harassment

¶ … BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH

Supreme Court of the United States, 1998

524 U.S. 742

Vicarious liability of employer in a sexual harassment case

Sexual harassment, hostile work environment, vicarious liability, Title VII, affirmative defenses, job-related consequences

FACTS:

Kimberly Ellerth worked at Burlington Industries for 15 months under Ted Slowik, a vice president at Burlington. During that time, she alleged that Slowik created a hostile work environment by making unwanted sexual advances. On three occasions, comments were made that appeared to be a threat to deny Ellerth job-related benefits. However, the threats were not carried out and, on the contrary, Ellerth was promoted once. At no point during her employment did Ellerth notify anyone above Slowik of the alleged misconduct. Ellerth received a right-to-sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and commenced suit against Burlington for creation of a hostile work environment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the company and the Court of Appeals affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part.

QUESTION:

Can an employee recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 despite suffering no job-related detriment because of her refusal of sexual advances from a supervisor and without showing the employer was responsible for the supervisor's misconduct?

HOLDING:

Yes, an employee may recover against an employer without showing negligent or at-fault conduct of the employer and without suffering a job-related consequence because of her refusal of the supervisor's sexual advances. However, if the plaintiff has not suffered a tangible job-related consequence, an employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability where the employer acted with reasonable care to promptly correct or prevent the sexual harassment and the plaintiff unreasonably did not take advantage of the corrective or preventative protection offered by the employer. While Burlington was vicariously liable, the case was remanded to allow consideration of an affirmative defense and plaintiff's case in accordance with these principles.

REASON: