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.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
Argued March 25, 1998
Decided June 26, 1998
PARTIES:
Beth Ann Faragher: petitioner; City of Boca Raton:
respondent
FACTS:
Beth Ann Faragher worked part-time and during summers between 1990 and 1995 as a life-guard for the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Boca Raton, Florida. Her immediate superiors during this period were Bill Terry, David Silverman and Robert Gordon.
After resigning as a lifeguard, Faragher brought an action against Terry, Silverman and the City under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for nominal damages and other relief, alleging, among other things, that the supervisors had created a "sexually hostile atmosphere" at work by repeatedly subjecting Faragher and other female lifeguards to uninvited and offensive touching, by making lewd remarks, and by speaking of women in offensive terms. Asserting that Terry and Silverman were agents of the City, and that their conduct amounted to discrimination in the "terms, conditions, and privileges" of her employment, Faragher sought a judgment against the City for nominal damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
Following a bench trial, the District Court found that Terry and Silverman had indeed indulged in the kind of inappropriate behavior as alleged by Faragher towards her and other female lifeguards. That Faragher did not complain formally to higher management about Terry or Silverman but spoke of their behavior to Gordon informally, who did not take any action nor did he report the matter to any city official.
The District Court, therefore, held that the City could be held liable for the harassment of Faragher by its supervisory employees because of three reasons: a) the harassment was pervasive enough to support an inference that the City had "knowledge, or constructive knowledge" of it; b) the city was liable under traditional agency principles since Terry and Silverman were acting as the City's agents when they committed the harassing acts; and c) a third supervisor had knowledge of the harassment and failed to report it to City officials.
The full Court of Appeals reversed in a 7 to 5 decision. It held that the City could not be held liable because: a) in harassing Faragher, Terry and Silverman...
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held the City liable for harassment of the petitioner by its supervisory employees. (1994)
2. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment against the City. (1996)
3. In a 7-to-5 decision, the full Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, adopted the panel's conclusion; thus confirming the reversal of the District Court's decision. (1997)
4. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' holding by a 7-2 decision (1998)
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether the City of Boca Raton (employer) should be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of its supervisory employees (Terry and Silverman) for the sexual harassment of their subordinate (Faragher)?
2. Whether the sexual harassment of Faragher (and other female life-guards) by Terry and Silverman created a hostile work environment 'pervasive enough' to amount to employment discrimination?
RULE
1. Sexual harassment so "severe or pervasive" as to "alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment" violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as clarified in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, (1957)
2. A "master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment." [Restatement §219(1)], i.e., the Employer is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees as long as they employees are acting in the "scope of their employment."
APPLICATION OF LAW
The Court discussed all aspects of the case by reviewing its previous rulings in cases of sexual harassment and vicarious liability in order to determine the levels of sexual harassment that are serious enough to make the employers vicariously liable and what exactly constitutes "the scope of employment."
Referring to Harris…
Faragher v. The City of Boca Raton (1998) is considered to be landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of sexual harassment in the workplace. This is mainly because until Faragher, the Appeal Courts in the U.S. had typically considered sexual harassment by employees in the workplace as "frolics or detours from the course of employment" which was "acting beyond the scope of their employment." As such, sexual harassment by employees (including supervisors) was deemed to fall beyond the scope of Restatement 219 (1) and absolved the employer of any vicarious liability.
Faragher constitutes an important departure from such a benign interpretation of sexual harassment by the courts and set more strict standards of judgment in future cases. It also forced the employers and supervisors to view sexual harassment more seriously and to implement policies of prevention in the workplace.
The Case, in fact, reflects the changing social attitudes towards sexual harassment in the American society. There was a time, when crass behavior by male employees in the workplace could go unchallenged or was ignored by women. Following the success of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, movements for the rights of other minorities had gained ground. By the 1990s, previous Court rulings in sexual harassment cases had become out of tune with the changed social standards. Faragher defined the parameters of sexual harassment more clearly and also broadened the scope of vicarious liability in general.
Frargher v. The City of Boca Raton, Florida CAPTION / CITATION: Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) The issue argued was whether an employer can be held liable under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the actions of an employee who has created a hostile work environment due to sexually harassing behavior towards other subordinates in the workplace. FACTS: Beth Ann Faragher was a lifeguard in the
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
Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment The judge's decision was appropriate for this case because it was proven that Ms. Darcy did sufficiently state the facts in the case. It was proven that Clarence was a supervisor, that there was sexual harassment, and it was a hostile work environment. The lewd remarks and having to constantly touch Ms. Darcy was not isolated events and was not just a few times, constituting the
The adverse effect on the employee must be subjective, as well as objective. Not only must the employee suffer from the harassment, but it is also required that a reasonable person in the shoes of the employee would likely have suffered from such conduct." Id. At 84. While the Dupont case involved a sustained, systematic history of abusive behavior, the Court also found that if the behavior was extreme