Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 855.0

524US2

Unit: U100

[09-15-00 14:43:09] PAGES PGT: OPIN

810

FARAGHER v. BOCA RATON

Thomas, J., dissenting

3

The Court of Appeals also rejected the possibility that it
could hold the City liable for the reason that it knew of the
harassment vicariously through the knowledge of its supervi-
sors. We have no occasion to consider whether this was
error, however. We are satisﬁed that liability on the ground
of vicarious knowledge could not be determined without fur-
ther factﬁnding on remand, whereas the reversal necessary
on the theory of supervisory harassment renders any remand
for consideration of imputed knowledge entirely unjustiﬁable
(as would be any consideration of negligence as an alterna-
tive to a theory of vicarious liability here).

III

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for reinstate-
ment of the judgment of the District Court.

It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins,

dissenting.

For the reasons given in my dissenting opinion in Burling-
ton Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, ante, p. 742, absent an ad-
verse employment consequence, an employer cannot be held
vicariously liable if a supervisor creates a hostile work envi-
ronment. Petitioner suffered no adverse employment con-
sequence; thus the Court of Appeals was correct to hold that
the city of Boca Raton (City) is not vicariously liable for the
conduct of Chief Terry and Lieutenant Silverman. Because
the Court reverses this judgment, I dissent.

As for petitioner’s negligence claim, the District Court
made no ﬁnding as to the City’s negligence, and the Court of
Appeals did not directly consider the issue.
I would there-
fore remand the case to the District Court for further pro-
I disagree with the Court’s
ceedings on this question alone.