Employment Law
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Study notes for Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
An employer can be held vicariously liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment, even without tangible employment action, but may use an affirmative defense.
In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court tackled a significant issue regarding employer liability under Title VII for sexual harassment by a supervisor. The case is pivotal in understanding vicarious liability where it established that an employer can be held responsible even in the absence of tangible adverse employment action, provided that the harassment occurred in the workplace. The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of creating a safe work environment and affirms the necessity for employers to establish effective reporting mechanisms for harassment claims.
Furthermore, it's crucial for students to grasp the two-prong affirmative defense established by the Court, which allows an employer to avoid liability if they can demonstrate (1) that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassment, and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities. Understanding how this case interacts with broader principles of Title VII will be essential for both practice and examination preparation.
Ellerth's Case: No Action, Still Liability - Remember 'RAP' for the employer's defense: Reasonable care and employee's Awareness and Participation.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Faragher v. City of Boca Raton | Faragher reinforces the employer's liability for supervisory harassment but evaluates the conditions under which the affirmative defense can be successfully employed. |
| Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson | Meritor established the standard for recognizing sexual harassment under Title VII but did not address vicarious liability regarding supervisors specifically. |
Holding employers liable encourages them to implement stronger harassment prevention policies and motivates employees to report misconduct.
Some argue that it could lead to undue employer liability for actions they cannot control, especially in cases where harassment is not reported.
In exams, this case often appears in the context of vicarious liability and employer defenses against sexual harassment claims. Students should be prepared to analyze whether effective preventive measures were in place and discuss the implications of the Court's ruling.