BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH () F.3d , affirmed. Syllabus, Opinion [ Kennedy ], Concurrence [ Ginsburg ], Dissent [ Thomas ]. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 , , ruled (7–2) that—under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , which. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth. Determined whether an employee who suffered sexual harassment by a supervisor can recover damages against her.

Author: Nazragore Tygoll
Country: Jamaica
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 18 August 2005
Pages: 437
PDF File Size: 8.47 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.47 Mb
ISBN: 925-6-87452-628-2
Downloads: 42558
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shanos

What to do next… Unlock this case brief with a free elletrh trial membership of Quimbee. Most courts do not hold an employer automatically liable for this type of discrimination. Because supervisory harassment cases involve misuse of actual power, not the false impression of its existence, apparent authority analysis is inappropriate.

No contracts or commitments.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Such an additional aid exists when a supervisor subjects a subordinate to a significant, tangible employment action, i. Discover some of the most interesting and trending topics of The case involved Kimberly Ellerth, a female salesperson for Burlington Industries who worked in Illinois.

Negligence sets a minimum standard for Title VII liability; but Ellerth seeks to invoke the more stringent standard of vicarious liability. Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed.


This Court imports the significant, tangible employment action concept for resolution of the vicarious liability issue considered here.

Induustriescase in which the U. She identified three episodes involving threats to deny tangible job benefits unless sexual favors were granted. Uniform format for every case brief. Ellerth subsequently filed suit, and a federal district court granted Industdies a summary judgment. An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate or higher authority over the employee, subject to an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action is taken.

Written by law professors and practitionersnot other law students. Articles with short description. Help us improve this article!

Earlier cases had placed sexual harassment claims into two b The District Court granted Burlington summary judgment. Civil Rights Act, comprehensive U. The Court relies on the general common law of agency, rather than on the law of any particular State. Supreme Court of the United Statesfinal court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United Burlinton. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Although such torts generally may be either negligent or intentional, sexual harassment under Title VII presupposes intentional conduct.

Generally, having an effective sexual harassment policy that is used and works is sufficient to satisfy the first prong. The Seventh Circuit en banc reversed in a decision that produced eight separate opinions and no consensus for a controlling rationale.


Proximity and regular contact afford a captive pool of bulrington victims. However, where, as here, there is no tangible employment action, it is not obvious the agency relationship aids in commission of the tort.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth – Wikipedia

On April 22,the case was argued before the U. The company also makes specialty fabrics for athletic, medical, waterproof, and windproof garments.

Ellerth is often considered alongside Faragher.

Supreme Court of the United States. We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

Within burlingtonn framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen. Where it is feasible, a syllabus headnote will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind.