Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 823.0

524US2

Unit: U100

[09-15-00 14:43:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

778

FARAGHER v. BOCA RATON

Syllabus

derance of the evidence. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). The defense
comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised rea-
sonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing
behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take
advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the
employer or to avoid harm otherwise. While proof that an employer
had promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedure is
not necessary in every instance as a matter of law, the need for a stated
policy suitable to the employment circumstances may appropriately be
addressed in any case when litigating the ﬁrst element of the defense.
And while proof that an employee failed to fulﬁll the corresponding obli-
gation of reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing an
unreasonable failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the
employer, a demonstration of such failure will normally sufﬁce to satisfy
the employer’s burden under the second element of the defense. No
afﬁrmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harass-
ment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge,
demotion, or undesirable reassignment. Pp. 801–808.

(d) Under this standard, the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment must be re-
versed. The District Court found that the degree of hostility in the
work environment rose to the actionable level and was attributable to
Silverman and Terry, and it is clear that these supervisors were granted
virtually unchecked authority over their subordinates and that Fara-
gher and her colleagues were completely isolated from the City’s higher
management. While the City would have an opportunity to raise an
afﬁrmative defense if there were any serious prospect of its presenting
one, it appears from the record that any such avenue is closed. The
District Court found that the City had entirely failed to disseminate its
sexual harassment policy among the beach employees and that its ofﬁ-
cials made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors, and
the record makes clear that the City’s policy did not include any harass-
ing supervisors assurance that could be bypassed in registering com-
plaints. Under such circumstances, the Court holds as a matter of law
that the City could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to
prevent the supervisors’ harassing conduct. Although the record dis-
closes two possible grounds upon which the City might seek to excuse
its failure to distribute its policy and to establish a complaint mecha-
nism, both are contradicted by the record. The City points to nothing
that might justify a conclusion by the District Court on remand that the
City had exercised reasonable care. Nor is there any reason to remand
for consideration of Faragher’s efforts to mitigate her own damages,
since the award to her was solely nominal. Pp. 808–809.