Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 831

524US2

Unit: U100

[09-15-00 14:43:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

786

FARAGHER v. BOCA RATON

Opinion of the Court

Long, 59 F. 3d 1391 (CADC), cert. denied, 516 U. S. 1011
(1995); and Karibian v. Columbia University, 14 F. 3d 773
(CA2), cert. denied, 512 U. S. 1213 (1994). We granted cer-
tiorari to address the divergence, 522 U. S. 978 (1997), and
now reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and
remand for entry of judgment in Faragher’s favor.

II
A

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “[i]t shall
be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to
fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or other-
wise to discriminate against any individual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employ-
ment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin.”
42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). We have
repeatedly made clear that although the statute mentions
speciﬁc employment decisions with immediate consequences,
the scope of the prohibition “ ‘is not limited to “economic” or
“tangible” discrimination,’ ” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
510 U. S. 17, 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB
v. Vinson, supra, at 64), and that it covers more than
“ ‘terms’ and ‘conditions’ in the narrow contractual sense.”
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75,
78 (1998). Thus, in Meritor we held that sexual harassment
so “severe or pervasive” as to “ ‘alter the conditions of [the
victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environ-
477 U. S., at 67 (quoting Henson
ment’ ” violates Title VII.
v. Dundee, 682 F. 2d 897, 904 (CA11 1982)).

In thus holding that environmental claims are covered by
the statute, we drew upon earlier cases recognizing liability
for discriminatory harassment based on race and national or-
igin, see, e. g., Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F. 2d 234 (CA5 1971),
cert. denied, 406 U. S. 957 (1972); Fireﬁghters Institute for
Racial Equality v. St. Louis, 549 F. 2d 506 (CA8), cert. de-
nied sub nom. Banta v. United States, 434 U. S. 819 (1977),