Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 798

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

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

753

Opinion of the Court

ment occurred.
If the plaintiff established a quid pro quo
claim, the Courts of Appeals held, the employer was subject
to vicarious liability. See Davis v. Sioux City, 115 F. 3d
1365, 1367 (CA8 1997); Nichols v. Frank, 42 F. 3d 503, 513–
514 (CA9 1994); Bouton v. BMW of North America, Inc., 29
F. 3d 103, 106–107 (CA3 1994); Sauers v. Salt Lake County,
1 F. 3d 1122, 1127 (CA10 1993); Kauffman v. Allied Signal,
Inc., 970 F. 2d 178, 185–186 (CA6), cert. denied, 506 U. S.
1041 (1992); Steele v. Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., 867 F. 2d
1311, 1316 (CA11 1989). The rule encouraged Title VII
plaintiffs to state their claims as quid pro quo claims, which
in turn put expansive pressure on the deﬁnition. The equiv-
alence of the quid pro quo label and vicarious liability is illus-
trated by this case. The question presented on certiorari is
whether Ellerth can state a claim of quid pro quo harass-
ment, but the issue of real concern to the parties is whether
Burlington has vicarious liability for Slowik’s alleged mis-
conduct, rather than liability limited to its own negligence.
The question presented for certiorari asks:

“Whether a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment
may be stated under Title VII . . . where the plaintiff
employee has neither submitted to the sexual advances
of the alleged harasser nor suffered any tangible effects
on the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of
employment as a consequence of a refusal to submit to
those advances?” Pet. for Cert. i.

We do not suggest the terms quid pro quo and hostile
work environment are irrelevant to Title VII litigation. To
the extent they illustrate the distinction between cases in-
volving a threat which is carried out and offensive conduct
in general, the terms are relevant when there is a threshold
question whether a plaintiff can prove discrimination in vio-
lation of Title VII. When a plaintiff proves that a tangible
employment action resulted from a refusal to submit to a
supervisor’s sexual demands, he or she establishes that the