Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 811

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

766

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Thomas, J., dissenting

should have an adequate opportunity to prove she has a
claim for which Burlington is liable.

Although Ellerth has not alleged she suffered a tangible
employment action at the hands of Slowik, which would
deprive Burlington of the availability of the afﬁrmative
In light of our decision,
defense, this is not dispositive.
Burlington is still subject to vicarious liability for Slowik’s
activity, but Burlington should have an opportunity to assert
and prove the afﬁrmative defense to liability. See supra,
at 765.

For these reasons, we will afﬁrm the judgment of the
Court of Appeals, reversing the grant of summary judgment
against Ellerth. On remand, the District Court will have
the opportunity to decide whether it would be appropriate
to allow Ellerth to amend her pleading or supplement her
discovery.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is afﬁrmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court’s ruling that “the labels quid pro
quo and hostile work environment are not controlling for
purposes of establishing employer liability.” Ante, at 765.
I also subscribe to the Court’s statement of the rule govern-
ing employer liability, ibid., which is substantively identical
to the rule the Court adopts in Faragher v. Boca Raton, post,
p. 775.

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins,

dissenting.

The Court today manufactures a rule that employers are
vicariously liable if supervisors create a sexually hostile
work environment, subject to an afﬁrmative defense that the
Court barely attempts to deﬁne. This rule applies even if
the employer has a policy against sexual harassment, the
employee knows about that policy, and the employee never