Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 809

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

764

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Opinion of the Court

itor’s rule even though it has made signiﬁcant amendments
to Title VII in the interim. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illi-
nois, 431 U. S. 720, 736 (1977) (“[W]e must bear in mind that
considerations of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of
statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this
Court’s interpretation of its legislation”).

Although Meritor suggested the limitation on employer
liability stemmed from agency principles, the Court acknowl-
edged other considerations might be relevant as well. See
477 U. S., at 72 (“common-law principles may not be transfer-
able in all their particulars to Title VII”). For example,
Title VII is designed to encourage the creation of antiharass-
ment policies and effective grievance mechanisms. Were
employer liability to depend in part on an employer’s effort
to create such procedures, it would effect Congress’ intention
to promote conciliation rather than litigation in the Title VII
context, see EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U. S. 54, 77 (1984),
and the EEOC’s policy of encouraging the development
of grievance procedures. See 29 CFR § 1604.11(f) (1997);
EEOC Policy Guidance on Sexual Harassment, 8 BNA FEP
Manual 405:6699 (Mar. 19, 1990). To the extent limiting em-
ployer liability could encourage employees to report harass-
ing conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive, it would
also serve Title VII’s deterrent purpose. See McKennon v.
Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U. S. 352, 358 (1995).
As we have observed, Title VII borrows from tort law the
avoidable consequences doctrine, see Ford Motor Co. v.
EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 231, n. 15 (1982), and the considerations
which animate that doctrine would also support the limita-
tion of employer liability in certain circumstances.

In order to accommodate the agency principles of vicarious
liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority,
as well as Title VII’s equally basic policies of encouraging
forethought by employers and saving action by objecting em-
ployees, we adopt the following holding in this case and in
Faragher v. Boca Raton, post, p. 775, also decided today.