Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 794.0

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

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

749

Opinion of the Court

In fact, she chose not to inform her immediate supervisor
(not Slowik) because “ ‘it would be his duty as my supervisor
to report any incidents of sexual harassment.’ ”
Ibid. On
one occasion, she told Slowik a comment he made was in-
appropriate.

Ibid.

In October 1994, after receiving a right-to-sue letter from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
Ellerth ﬁled suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging Burlington engaged in
sexual harassment and forced her constructive discharge, in
violation of Title VII. The District Court granted summary
judgment to Burlington. The court found Slowik’s behav-
ior, as described by Ellerth, severe and pervasive enough
to create a hostile work environment, but found Burlington
neither knew nor should have known about the conduct.
There was no triable issue of fact on the latter point, and
the court noted Ellerth had not used Burlington’s internal
complaint procedures.
Id., at 1118. Although Ellerth’s
claim was framed as a hostile work environment complaint,
the District Court observed there was a quid pro quo “com-
Id., at 1121. Proceed-
ponent” to the hostile environment.
ing from the premise that an employer faces vicarious liabil-
ity for quid pro quo harassment, the District Court thought
it necessary to apply a negligence standard because the quid
pro quo merely contributed to the hostile work environment.
See id., at 1123. The District Court also dismissed Ellerth’s
constructive discharge claim.

The Court of Appeals en banc reversed in a decision which
produced eight separate opinions and no consensus for a
controlling rationale. The judges were able to agree on
the problem they confronted: Vicarious liability, not failure
to comply with a duty of care, was the essence of Ellerth’s
case against Burlington on appeal. The judges seemed to
agree Ellerth could recover if Slowik’s unfulﬁlled threats
to deny her tangible job beneﬁts was sufﬁcient to impose
vicarious liability on Burlington. Jansen v. Packing Corp.