Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 800

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

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

755

Opinion of the Court

terms.” Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,
490 U. S. 730, 740 (1989). The resulting federal rule, based
on a body of case law developed over time, is statutory inter-
pretation pursuant to congressional direction. This is not
federal common law in “the strictest sense, i. e., a rule of
decision that amounts, not simply to an interpretation of a
federal statute . . . , but, rather, to the judicial ‘creation’ of a
special federal rule of decision.” Atherton v. FDIC, 519
U. S. 213, 218 (1997). State-court decisions, applying state
employment discrimination law, may be instructive in apply-
ing general agency principles, but, it is interesting to note,
in many cases their determinations of employer liability
under state law rely in large part on federal-court decisions
under Title VII. E. g., Arizona v. Schallock, 189 Ariz. 250,
259, 941 P. 2d 1275, 1284 (1997); Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us,
Inc., 132 N. J. 587, 622, 626 A. 2d 445, 463 (1993); Thompson
v. Berta Enterprises, Inc., 72 Wash. App. 531, 537–539, 864
P. 2d 983, 986–988 (1994).

As Meritor acknowledged, the Restatement (Second) of
Agency (1957) (hereinafter Restatement) is a useful begin-
477
ning point for a discussion of general agency principles.
U. S., at 72. Since our decision in Meritor, federal courts
have explored agency principles, and we ﬁnd useful instruc-
tion in their decisions, noting that “common-law principles
may not be transferable in all their particulars to Title VII.”
Ibid. The EEOC has issued Guidelines governing sexual
harassment claims under Title VII, but they provide little
guidance on the issue of employer liability for supervisor
harassment. See 29 CFR § 1604.11(c) (1997) (vicarious liabil-
ity for supervisor harassment turns on “the particular em-
ployment relationship and the job functions performed by
the individual”).

A

Section 219(1) of the Restatement sets out a central princi-

ple of agency law: