Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … 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…
REFERENCES
Biskupic, Joan. 1998. "Defining the Terms of Harassment," Washington Post, April 20, 1998,-Page A01.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly B. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court of U.S. 1998).
Sexual harassment can be legally defined as "verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, aimed at a particular person or group of people, especially in the workplace or in academic or other institutional settings, that is actionable, as in tort or under equal-opportunity statutes" ("sexual harassment," 2012). If a person in authority such as a boss, mentor, or official is found pressurizing a person holding an inferior position with
Law Sexual Harassment Teddy's Supplies' CEO Dear Sir, In pursuing the facts of the case I think Teddy's is having a written sexual harassment policy and a method for employees to report sexual harassment -- either to the supervisor or in secret by using the www.ReportTeddysafely.com. As an employer some of the necessities stipulated by law have been followed. The Supreme Court defined two principles regarding the sexual harassment at the workplace.
These types of insurance against claims of sexual impropriety and harassment are becoming more and more common in light of the established legal precedents defining sexual harassment. Another way that employers have reacted to sexual harassment is to educate and train employees about what constitutes it. Many employers have created classes, seminars, or even just opened discussion about how sexual harassment is defined by the Supreme Court, as well as
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
An appellate court case that found the employer liable for hostile environment sexual harassment is Kunin v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Under this claim, Karen Kunin was sexually harassed by a male employee based upon the abusive and derogatory language that was used. Kunin did not report any abuse to her employer other than to asking if cursing was harassment. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that an employer must