Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 802

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

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

757

Opinion of the Court

but employer was not liable because of its quick and effective
remediation). The harassing supervisor often acts for per-
sonal motives, motives unrelated and even antithetical to
the objectives of the employer. Cf. Mechem, supra, § 368
(“[F]or the time being [the supervisor] is conspicuously and
unmistakably seeking a personal end”); see also Restatement
§ 235, Illustration 2 (tort committed while “[a]cting purely
from personal ill will” not within the scope of employment);
id., Illustration 3 (tort committed in retaliation for failing to
pay the employee a bribe not within the scope of employ-
ment). There are instances, of course, where a supervisor
engages in unlawful discrimination with the purpose, mis-
taken or otherwise, to serve the employer. E. g., Sims v.
Montgomery County Comm’n, 766 F. Supp. 1052, 1075 (MD
Ala. 1990) (supervisor acting in scope of employment where
employer has a policy of discouraging women from seeking
advancement and “sexual harassment was simply a way of
furthering that policy”).

The concept of scope of employment has not always been
construed to require a motive to serve the employer. E. g.,
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 398 F. 2d 167,
172 (CA2 1968). Federal courts have nonetheless found sim-
ilar limitations on employer liability when applying the
agency laws of the States under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, which makes the Federal Government liable for torts
committed by employees within the scope of employment.
28 U. S. C. § 1346(b); see, e. g., Jamison v. Wiley, 14 F. 3d 222,
237 (CA4 1994) (supervisor’s unfair criticism of subordinate’s
work in retaliation for rejecting his sexual advances not
within scope of employment); Wood v. United States, 995
F. 2d 1122, 1123 (CA1 1993) (Breyer, C. J.) (sexual harass-
ment amounting to assault and battery “clearly outside the
scope of employment”); see also 2 L. Jayson & R. Longstreth,
Handling Federal Tort Claims § 9.07[4], p. 9–211 (1998).

The general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor

is not conduct within the scope of employment.