Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 37

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

3 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting

  In  Faragher  and  Ellerth,  this  Court  established  a 
framework for determining when an employer may be held 
liable  for  its  employees’  creation  of  a  hostile  work  envi-
ronment.  Recognizing  that  Title  VII’s  definition  of  “em-
ployer”  includes  an  employer’s  “agent[s],”  42  U. S. C. 
§2000e(b), the Court looked to agency law for guidance in
formulating  liability  standards.  Faragher,  524  U. S.,  at 
791, 801; Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 755–760.  In particular, the 
Court drew upon §219(2)(d) of the Restatement (Second) of 
Agency  (1957),  which  makes  an  employer  liable  for  the 
conduct  of  an  employee,  even  when  that  employee  acts 
beyond  the  scope  of  her  employment,  if  the  employee  is
“aided  in  accomplishing”  a  tort  “by  the  existence  of  the 
agency relation.”  See Faragher, 524 U. S., at 801; Ellerth, 
524 U. S., at 758. 

Stemming from that guide, Faragher and Ellerth distin-
guished  between  harassment  perpetrated  by  supervisors,
which is often enabled by the supervisor’s agency relation-
ship  with  the  employer,  and  harassment  perpetrated  by
co-workers,  which  is  not  similarly  facilitated.    Faragher, 
524  U. S.,  at  801–803;  Ellerth,  524  U. S.,  at  763–765.    If 
the  harassing  employee  is  a  supervisor,  the  Court  held,
the  employer  is  vicariously  liable  whenever  the  harass-
ment  culminates  in  a  tangible  employment  action.  Far-
agher,  524  U. S.,  at  807–808;  Ellerth,  524  U. S.,  at  764– 
765.  The  term  “tangible  employment  action,”  Ellerth 
observed, “constitutes a significant change in employment 
status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassign-
ment  with  significantly  different  responsibilities,  or  a 
decision  causing  a  significant  change  in  benefits.”  Id.,  at 
761.  Such  an  action,  the  Court  explained,  provides  “as-
surance the injury could not have been inflicted absent the
agency relation.”  Id., at 761–762. 

An  employer  may  also  be  held  vicariously  liable  for  a
supervisor’s  harassment  that  does  not  culminate  in  a 
tangible  employment  action,  the  Court  next  determined.