Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 805.0

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

760

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Opinion of the Court

ity based on an agent’s misuse of delegated authority, the
Restatement’s aided in the agency relation rule, rather than
the apparent authority rule, appears to be the appropriate
form of analysis.

D

We turn to the aided in the agency relation standard.

In a
sense, most workplace tortfeasors are aided in accomplishing
their tortious objective by the existence of the agency rela-
tion: Proximity and regular contact may afford a captive pool
of potential victims. See Gary v. Long, 59 F. 3d 1391, 1397
(CADC 1995). Were this to satisfy the aided in the agency
relation standard, an employer would be subject to vicarious
liability not only for all supervisor harassment, but also for
all co-worker harassment, a result enforced by neither the
EEOC nor any court of appeals to have considered the issue.
See, e. g., Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc., 123 F. 3d
868, 872 (CA6 1997), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1110 (1998) (sex
discrimination); McKenzie v. Illinois Dept. of Transp., 92
F. 3d 473, 480 (CA7 1996) (sex discrimination); Daniels v.
Essex Group, Inc., 937 F. 2d 1264, 1273 (CA7 1991) (race dis-
crimination); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11(d) (1997) (“knows or
should have known” standard of liability for cases of harass-
ment between “fellow employees”). The aided in the agency
relation standard, therefore, requires the existence of some-
thing more than the employment relation itself.

At the outset, we can identify a class of cases where, be-
yond question, more than the mere existence of the employ-
ment relation aids in commission of the harassment: when a
supervisor takes a tangible employment action against the
subordinate. Every Federal Court of Appeals to have con-
sidered the question has found vicarious liability when a
discriminatory act results in a tangible employment action.
See, e. g., Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F. 3d 1122, 1127
(CA10 1993) (“ ‘If the plaintiff can show that she suffered an
economic injury from her supervisor’s actions, the employer
becomes strictly liable without any further showing . . .’ ”).