Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 787

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

742

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the seventh circuit

No. 97–569. Argued April 22, 1998—Decided June 26, 1998

Respondent Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesper-
son in one of petitioner Burlington Industries’ many divisions, allegedly
because she had been subjected to constant sexual harassment by one
of her supervisors, Ted Slowik. Slowik was a midlevel manager who
had authority to hire and promote employees, subject to higher ap-
proval, but was not considered a policymaker. Against a background
of repeated boorish and offensive remarks and gestures allegedly made
by Slowik, Ellerth places particular emphasis on three incidents where
Slowik’s comments could be construed as threats to deny her tangible
job beneﬁts. Ellerth refused all of Slowik’s advances, yet suffered no
tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, she
never informed anyone in authority about Slowik’s conduct, despite
In ﬁling
knowing Burlington had a policy against sexual harassment.
this lawsuit, Ellerth alleged Burlington engaged in sexual harassment
and forced her constructive discharge, in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. The District Court
granted Burlington summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit en banc
reversed in a decision that produced eight separate opinions and no con-
sensus for a controlling rationale. Among other things, those opinions
focused on whether Ellerth’s claim could be categorized as one of quid
pro quo harassment, and on whether the standard for an employer’s
liability on such a claim should be vicarious liability or negligence.

Held: Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and
threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse,
tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without
showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the super-
visor’s actions, but the employer may interpose an afﬁrmative defense.
Pp. 751–766.

(a) The Court assumes an important premise yet to be established: A
trier of fact could ﬁnd in Slowik’s remarks numerous threats to retaliate
against Ellerth if she denied some sexual liberties. The threats, how-
ever, were not carried out. Cases based on carried-out threats are re-
ferred to often as “quid pro quo” cases, as distinct from bothersome
attentions or sexual remarks sufﬁcient to create a “hostile work environ-
ment.” Those two terms do not appear in Title VII, which forbids only