Kentucky
How Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth applies in Kentucky: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Employment Law.
In Kentucky, the principles established in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth align with state law recognizing that employers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of employees in cases of sexual harassment. Kentucky adopts the same two-pronged approach to ascertain whether an employer is liable for hostile work environment claims.
Kentucky law requires that employers demonstrate they took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any instances of harassment in order to avoid liability.
The court affirmed that employers must take proactive steps to prevent and remedy harassment to avoid vicarious liability.
The court ruled that an employer's failure to act upon knowledge of harassment could lead to vicarious liability under the Ellerth framework.
The court emphasized the importance of established reporting mechanisms in evaluating employer liability for harassment.
Kentucky’s approach to employment harassment mirrors the federal standard established by the EEOC guidelines and the Burlington case. However, Kentucky courts place additional emphasis on the proactive measures required from employers to demonstrate reasonable care.
The principles from Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth are likely to be tested on the Kentucky bar exam, particularly in understanding the nuances of employer liability in harassment cases.