Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 848.0

524US2

Unit: U100

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

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

803

Opinion of the Court

Co., 12 F. 3d 668, 675 (CA7 1993); Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N. J.
490, 505, 706 A. 2d 685, 692 (1998) (emphasizing that a super-
visor’s conduct may have a greater impact than that of col-
leagues at the same level); cf. Torres, 116 F. 3d, at 631. See
also White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d 1205, 1209–1210 (La.
1991) (a supervisor’s harassment of a subordinate is more apt
to rise to the level of intentional inﬂiction of emotional dis-
tress than comparable harassment by a coemployee); Con-
treras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 88 Wash. 2d 735, 740, 565
P. 2d 1173, 1176 (1977) (same); Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering,
Inc., 2 Cal. 3d 493, 498–499, and n. 2, 468 P. 2d 216, 218–219,
and n. 2 (1970) (same). The agency relationship affords con-
tact with an employee subjected to a supervisor’s sexual har-
assment, and the victim may well be reluctant to accept the
risks of blowing the whistle on a superior. When a person
with supervisory authority discriminates in the terms and
conditions of subordinates’ employment, his actions necessar-
ily draw upon his superior position over the people who
report to him, or those under them, whereas an employee
generally cannot check a supervisor’s abusive conduct the
same way that she might deal with abuse from a co-worker.
When a fellow employee harasses, the victim can walk away
or tell the offender where to go, but it may be difﬁcult to
offer such responses to a supervisor, whose “power to super-
vise—[which may be] to hire and ﬁre, and to set work sched-
ules and pay rates—does not disappear . . . when he chooses
to harass through insults and offensive gestures rather than
directly with threats of ﬁring or promises of promotion.”
Estrich, Sex at Work, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 813, 854 (1991). Rec-
ognition of employer liability when discriminatory misuse of
supervisory authority alters the terms and conditions of a
victim’s employment is underscored by the fact that the em-
ployer has a greater opportunity to guard against miscon-
duct by supervisors than by common workers; employers
have greater opportunity and incentive to screen them, train
them, and monitor their performance.