Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 830

524US2

Unit: U100

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 775 (1998)

785

Opinion of the Court

ual harassment by the existence of the agency relationship
with his employer because his responsibilities include close
proximity to and regular contact with the victim,” the court
held that traditional agency law does not employ so broad a
concept of aid as a predicate of employer liability, but re-
quires something more than a mere combination of agency
relationship and improper conduct by the agent.
Ibid. Be-
cause neither Terry nor Silverman threatened to ﬁre or
demote Faragher, the court concluded that their agency
relationship did not facilitate their harassment.

Ibid.

The en banc court also afﬁrmed the panel’s ruling that the
City lacked constructive knowledge of the supervisors’ har-
assment. The court read the District Court’s opinion to rest
on an erroneous legal conclusion that any harassment perva-
sive enough to create a hostile environment must a fortiori
also sufﬁce to charge the employer with constructive knowl-
Id., at 1538. Rejecting this approach, the court re-
edge.
viewed the record and found no adequate factual basis to
conclude that the harassment was so pervasive that the City
should have known of it, relying on the facts that the harass-
ment occurred intermittently, over a long period of time, and
at a remote location.
In footnotes, the court also
rejected the arguments that the City should be deemed to
have known of the harassment through Gordon, id., at 1538,
n. 9, or charged with constructive knowledge because of its
failure to disseminate its sexual harassment policy among
the lifeguards, id., at 1539, n. 11.

Ibid.

Since our decision in Meritor, Courts of Appeals have
struggled to derive manageable standards to govern em-
ployer liability for hostile environment harassment perpe-
trated by supervisory employees. While following our ad-
monition to ﬁnd guidance in the common law of agency, as
embodied in the Restatement, the Courts of Appeals have
adopted different approaches. Compare, e. g., Harrison v.
Eddy Potash, Inc., 112 F. 3d 1437 (CA10 1997), vacated, post,
p. 947; 111 F. 3d 1530 (CA11 1997) (case below); Gary v.