Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Following this decision, the lower courts generally held that 
an employer was liable for a racially hostile work environ- 
ment  if  the  employer  was  negligent,  i.e.,  if  the  employer
knew or reasonably should have known about the harass­
ment but failed to take remedial action.  See Ellerth, 524 
U. S., at 768–769 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (citing cases). 

When  the  issue  eventually  reached  this  Court,  we 
agreed  that  Title  VII  prohibits  the  creation  of  a  hostile
work environment.  See Meritor, supra, at 64–67.  In such 
cases, we have held, the plaintiff must show that the work 
environment  was  so  pervaded  by  discrimination  that  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  employment  were  altered.    See, 
e.g.,  Harris  v.  Forklift  Systems,  Inc.,  510  U. S.  17,  21 
(1993). 

B 
  Consistent with Rogers, we have held that an employer 
is directly liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment if
the  employer  was  negligent  with  respect  to  the  offensive 
behavior.  Faragher,  524  U. S.,  at  789.    Courts  have  gen­
erally applied this rule to evaluate employer liability when 
a co-worker harasses the plaintiff.1
  In Ellerth and Faragher, however, we held that different 
rules  apply  where  the  harassing  employee  is  the  plain- 
tiff ’s “supervisor.”  In those instances, an employer may be 
vicariously  liable  for  its  employees’  creation  of  a  hostile 
work  environment.  And  in  identifying  the  situations  in 
which such vicarious liability is appropriate, we looked to 
the  Restatement  of  Agency  for  guidance.  See,  e.g.,  Meri-

—————— 

1 See, e.g., Williams v. Waste Management of Ill., 361 F. 3d 1021, 1029 
(CA7  2004);  McGinest  v.  GTE  Serv.  Corp.,  360  F. 3d  1103,  1119  (CA9 
2004);  Joens  v.  John  Morrell  &  Co.,  354  F. 3d  938,  940  (CA8  2004); 
Noviello v. Boston, 398 F. 3d 76, 95 (CA1 2005); Duch v. Jakubek, 588 
F. 3d  757,  762  (CA2  2009);  Huston  v.  Procter  &  Gamble  Paper  Prods. 
Corp., 568 F. 3d 100, 104–105 (CA3 2009).