Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Facts:
Kimberly Ellerth worked as salesperson in of the divisions of Burlington Industries for fifteen months. She quitted her job and alleged that she had been subject of constant sexual harassment by one of his supervisors. During her employed she did not report about sexual harassment to her supervisors and after quitting the job she suit against Burlington for the constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. District court found that the behavior of supervisor created the hostile work environment. The defendants claim was they never knew about the situation and was not reported by the employee about the issue so that they could act upon it. The court of appeals reversed imposing vicarious liability on Burlington.
Issues:
Was there enough evidence to prove the quid-pro-quo and hostile environment existed for
…show more content…
discrimination? Was the action of the supervisor (one of the employees) was sufficient to impose vicarious liability on Burlington industries? No tangible action was taken or reported by Ms. Ellerth at the time of her employment. If tangible action existed in this case would Burtington have acted with reasonable care to prevent such environment and correct the behavior of the supervisors? The defense claim was that Ms Ellerth failed to take advantage of any corrective or preventive opportunities to restrict the harm. Ms Ellerth claims she was the victim of quid-pro-quo and hostile environment, compelled her to quit the job. Holding: Yes Reasoning: Supervisor may be the individual who initiated the quid-pro-quo advances, although employer of the supervisor is liable for the conduct of supervisor.
The Supreme Court held the decision by mentioning the employees who refuses unwelcome and threating sexual advances may not suffer any tangible job consequences, however they may recover against employer and it doesn’t need to prove the negligence act of the employer. Quid-pro-quo instance was involved in this case because Ms. Ellerth had to bear with the sexual attention and remarks creating a hostile environment. The action of supervisor was directly related with the scope of environment and it was directly tied with the job benefits therefore, Burlington had to impose the vicarious liability. The Court stated that "a tangible employment actions [which could not be taken but for the agency relationship] taken by a supervisor becomes for Title VII purposes, the act of the employer." Employer should be liable for the action Ms Ellerth faced even though Burlington was not aware of the situation cause by one of their
employees. Thoughts/ Comments: I agree with the judicial opinion for explaining the situation of quid-pro-quo and hostile environment. Sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, companies should be aware of this case and should attempt to make it clear policies to make it clear that sexual harassment is not permissible for any employee. There should be a good provision of whistleblowing or reporting so that employees could report about the actions in a proper manner. In this way a company may reduce its risk for being vicarious liable.
Based on the case what are two defenses against sexual harassment that can be used by an employer?
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
Title IX nowhere states that an individual can receive a monetary solution whenever a case is taken to court. With this case Franklin had no kind of justice from the school or the law before she filed her lawsuit. She was persuaded into thinking that she did not have to press any criminal charges against Hill. When taken into district court, her case was dismissed due to the fact that Title IX did not support monetary damages. When the Supreme Court took over the case, the court reversed the district court’s decision. The supreme court stated that monetary damages were available in a private right of action under Title IX such as Franklins case. The second question being brought up in this case is what "sex" cases are ruled under Title IX. The Title IX law specifies sex discrimination in education and does not refer to sexual harassment. In Franklin 's case it is a case doing with sexual harassment and sexual abuse. The analogy with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it prohibits sex discrimination in employment, the courts faced an issue prior to Franklins case to find that sexual harassment has been viewed as actionable sex discrimination under Title VII by both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
My Response. I think the court made the right decision by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgement as to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim, since her gender was not a contributing factor in this case. However, regarding the law in this case, I find it strange that just because Lynch treated both men and women equally badly, this would nullify Smith’s claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, when such harassment clearly took place. Why does the harassment have to be towards one sex only for there to be a valid legal case? Should it not be enough that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment?
...d to the appellant , yet the defendant company itself had no appropriate measures or policy for dealing with the sexual harassment.
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
McKenna violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and was completely liable for his actions. Similar cases such as Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth & Faragher v. City of Boca Raton(1998) – Employer is always liable when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor that results in tangible employment action (e.g., termination). It is a also evident from the case of Harris vs. Forklift (1993)- psychological damage not necessary for illegal “hostile or abusive environment” that a “reasonable person” would find hostile or abusive support that Mr. Mckenna is liable.
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
The “quid pro quo” harassment culprit is a boss or supervisor that gives certain employees below them benefits if they enter into a sexual relationship, or grant sexual favors to the boss/supervisor (Shaw, p.444). This form of sexual harassment is hard to argue, the suppressor is clearly taking advantage of the subordinate, because the subordinate is at risk for losing their job if they don’t participate.
The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital at the inpatient mental facility, while she was seeking treatment there; one of their staff Joseph Herrera (technician) sexually battered her. Plaintiff is suing the County of Dona Ana, because Herrera used to work for them as a detention sergeant, during his employment with the county he was known to be sexually abusive towards female inmates. His supervisors were aware of his behavior and were arranging his suspension and eventually terminating him; nevertheless Herrera quit before any further action was taken against him. Before his resignation Herrera asked for a letter of recommendation, he was given one that mentioned he was an excellent worker
Sexual harassment is an important issue in every business; if left unattended it could cost companies millions in damages. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From 1978 to 1980, sexual harassment cases brought against companies cost them $189 million. This number rose to $267 million from 1985-1987. Damages are just measured only by numbers. Sexual harassment can cause harm to a company's image, reputation, customers, as well as their revenue.
Facts of the case: Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.
Sexual harassment in the workplace has been a huge problem in recent history. It can happen to anyone, and it can happen everywhere. It can affect all types of races, genders and ages. Statistics today show that more and more sexual harassment has become an issue due to the large number of cases presented. Mainstream media becomes consumed covering sexual harassment because of the high-profile cases.