Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 828.0

524US2

Unit: U100

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 775 (1998)

783

Opinion of the Court

lifeguards had similarly informal talks with Gordon, but be-
cause Gordon did not feel that it was his place to do so, he
did not report these complaints to Terry, his own supervisor,
or to any other city ofﬁcial.
Id., at 1559–1560. Gordon re-
sponded to the complaints of one lifeguard by saying that
“the City just [doesn’t] care.”

Id., at 1561.

In April 1990, however, two months before Faragher’s res-
ignation, Nancy Ewanchew, a former lifeguard, wrote to
Richard Bender, the City’s Personnel Director, complaining
that Terry and Silverman had harassed her and other female
lifeguards.
Id., at 1559. Following investigation of this
complaint, the City found that Terry and Silverman had be-
haved improperly, reprimanded them, and required them to
choose between a suspension without pay or the forfeiture
of annual leave.

Ibid.

On the basis of these ﬁndings, the District Court concluded
that the conduct of Terry and Silverman was discriminatory
harassment sufﬁciently serious to alter the conditions of
Faragher’s employment and constitute an abusive working
environment.
Id., at 1562–1563. The District Court then
ruled that there were three justiﬁcations for holding the City
liable for the harassment of
its supervisory employees.
First, the court noted that the harassment was pervasive
enough to support an inference that the City had “knowl-
Id., at 1563. Next,
edge, or constructive knowledge,” of it.
it ruled that the City was liable under traditional agency
principles because Terry and Silverman were acting as
Id.,
its agents when they committed the harassing acts.
at 1563–1564. Finally, the court observed that Gordon’s
knowledge of the harassment, combined with his inaction,
“provides a further basis for imputing liability on [sic] the
Id., at 1564. The District Court then awarded Far-
City.”
agher $1 in nominal damages on her Title VII claim.
Id.,
at 1564–1565.

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
76 F. 3d 1155

reversed the judgment against the City.