Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 790

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

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

745

Syllabus

liability issue considered here. An employer is therefore subject to vi-
carious liability for such actions. However, where, as here, there is no
tangible employment action, it is not obvious the agency relationship
aids in commission of the tort. Moreover, Meritor holds that agency
principles constrain the imposition of employer liability for supervisor
harassment. Limiting employer liability is also consistent with Title
VII’s purpose to the extent it would encourage the creation and use of
antiharassment policies and grievance procedures. Thus, in order to
accommodate the agency principle 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 employees, the Court adopts, in this case and in Faragher v.
Boca Raton, post, p. 775, the following holding: An employer is subject
to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile
environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively
higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment
action is taken, a defending employer may raise an afﬁrmative defense
to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). The defense comprises two neces-
sary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to pre-
vent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that
the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any pre-
ventive 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 obligation of
reasonable care to avoid harm is not limited to showing an unreasonable
failure to use any complaint procedure provided by the employer, a dem-
onstration of such failure will normally sufﬁce to satisfy the employer’s
burden under the second element of the defense. No afﬁrmative de-
fense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culmi-
nates in a tangible employment action. Pp. 760–765.

(g) Given the Court’s explanation that the labels quid pro quo and
hostile work environment are not controlling for employer-liability pur-
poses, Ellerth should have an adequate opportunity on remand to prove
she has a claim which would result in vicarious liability. Although she
has not alleged she suffered a tangible employment action at Slowik’s
hands, which would deprive Burlington of the afﬁrmative defense, this
In light of the Court’s decision, Burlington is still
is not dispositive.