Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 810

524US2

Unit: $U99

[09-15-00 14:41:05] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 742 (1998)

765

Opinion of the Court

An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized
employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a
supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority
over the employee. When no tangible employment action is
taken, a defending employer may raise an afﬁrmative de-
fense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a prepon-
derance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). The
defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the em-
ployer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct
promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the
plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of
any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the
employer or to avoid harm otherwise. While proof that an
employer had promulgated an antiharassment policy with
complaint procedure is not necessary in every instance as a
matter of law, the need for a stated policy suitable to the
employment circumstances may appropriately be addressed
in any case when litigating the ﬁrst element of the defense.
And while proof that an employee failed to fulﬁll the cor-
responding obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm is
not limited to showing an unreasonable failure to use any
complaint procedure provided by the employer, a demonstra-
tion of such failure will normally sufﬁce to satisfy the
employer’s burden under the second element of the de-
fense. No afﬁrmative defense is available, however, when
the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employ-
ment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable
reassignment.

IV

Relying on existing case law which held out the promise
of vicarious liability for all quid pro quo claims, see supra,
at 752–753, Ellerth focused all her attention in the Court
of Appeals on proving her claim ﬁt within that category.
Given our explanation that the labels quid pro quo and hos-
tile work environment are not controlling for purposes of
establishing employer liability, see supra, at 754, Ellerth