Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 846

524US2

Unit: U100

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

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

801

Opinion of the Court

employer can guard against their misbehavior more easily
because their numbers are by deﬁnition fewer than the
numbers of regular employees. But this answer happens to
implicate an entirely separate category of agency law (to be
considered in the next section), which imposes vicarious
liability on employers for tortious acts committed by use of
particular authority conferred as an element of an employee’s
agency relationship with the employer. Since the virtue of
categorical clarity is obvious, it is better to reject reliance
on misuse of supervisory authority (without more) as irrele-
vant to scope-of-employment analysis.

2

The Court of Appeals also rejected vicarious liability on
the part of the City insofar as it might rest on the concluding
principle set forth in § 219(2)(d) of the Restatement, that an
employer “is not subject to liability for the torts of his serv-
ants acting outside the scope of their employment unless . . .
the servant purported to act or speak on behalf of the princi-
pal and there was reliance on apparent authority, or he was
aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the
agency relation.” Faragher points to several ways in which
the agency relationship aided Terry and Silverman in carry-
ing out their harassment. She argues that in general of-
fending supervisors can abuse their authority to keep sub-
ordinates in their presence while they make offensive
statements, and that they implicitly threaten to misuse their
supervisory powers to deter any resistance or complaint.
Thus, she maintains that power conferred on Terry and Sil-
verman by the City enabled them to act for so long without
provoking deﬁance or complaint.

The City, however, contends that § 219(2)(d) has no applica-
tion here.
It argues that the second qualiﬁcation of the sub-
section, referring to a servant “aided in accomplishing the
tort by the existence of the agency relation,” merely “re-
ﬁnes” the one preceding it, which holds the employer vicari-