Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 819.0

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

774

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Thomas, J., dissenting

But as the Court acknowledges, this is the one result that it
is clear Congress did not intend. See ante, at 763; Meritor
Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S., at 72.

The Court’s holding does guarantee one result: There will
be more and more litigation to clarify applicable legal rules
in an area in which both practitioners and the courts have
long been begging for guidance.
It thus truly boggles the
mind that the Court can claim that its holding will effect
“Congress’ intention to promote conciliation rather than liti-
gation in the Title VII context.” Ante, at 764. All in all,
today’s decision is an ironic result for a case that generated
eight separate opinions in the Court of Appeals on a funda-
mental question, and in which we granted certiorari “to as-
sist in deﬁning the relevant standards of employer liability.”
Ante, at 751.

*

*

*

Popular misconceptions notwithstanding, sexual harass-
ment is not a freestanding federal tort, but a form of employ-
ment discrimination. As such, it should be treated no differ-
ently (and certainly no better) than the other forms of
harassment that are illegal under Title VII.
I would restore
parallel treatment of employer liability for racial and sexual
harassment and hold an employer liable for a hostile work
I there-
environment only if the employer is truly at fault.
fore respectfully dissent.