Burlington Industries Inc. V. Ellerth Summary

510 Words2 Pages

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…

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

Open Document