Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

as supervisors.

The  way  in  which  we  framed  the  question  presented 
in  Ellerth  supports  this  understanding.  As  noted,  the 
Ellerth/Faragher  framework  sets  out  two  circumstances 
in  which  an  employer  may  be  vicariously  liable  for  a  su­
pervisor’s  harassment.  The  first  situation  (which  results
in  strict  liability)  exists  when  a  supervisor  actually  takes 
a  tangible  employment  action  based  on,  for  example,  a 
subordinate’s  refusal  to  accede  to  sexual  demands.    The 
second situation (which results in vicarious liability if the
employer  cannot  make  out  the  requisite  affirmative  de­
fense)  is  present  when  no  such  tangible  action  is  taken.
Both  Ellerth  and  Faragher  fell  into  the  second  category, 
and in Ellerth, the Court couched the question at issue in
the  following  terms:  “whether  an  employer  has  vicarious
liability  when  a  supervisor  creates  a  hostile  work  en- 
vironment  by  making  explicit  threats  to  alter  a  subor­
dinate’s terms or conditions of employment, based on sex, 
but  does  not  fulfill  the  threat.”    524  U. S.,  at  754.    This 
statement  plainly  ties  the  second  situation  to  a  supervi­
sor’s  authority  to  inflict  direct  economic  injury.    It  is  be­
cause  a  supervisor  has  that  authority—and  its  potential 
use  hangs  as  a  threat  over  the  victim—that  vicarious 
liability (subject to the affirmative defense) is justified. 
  Finally,  the  Ellerth/Faragher  Court  sought  a  frame­
work  that  would  be  workable  and  would  appropriately 
take into account the legitimate interests of employers and 
employees.    The  Court  looked  to  principles  of  agency  law 
for guidance, but the Court concluded that the “malleable 
terminology”  of  the  aided-in-the-commission  principle
counseled  against  the  wholesale  incorporation  of  that 
principle into Title VII case law.  Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 763. 
Instead,  the  Court  also  considered  the  objectives  of  Title
VII,  including  “the  limitation  of  employer  liability  in  cer­
tain circumstances.”  Id., at 764. 

The interpretation of the concept of a supervisor that we