Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 817.0

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

772

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Thomas, J., dissenting

appears to reason that a supervisor is “aided . . . by . . .
the agency relation” in creating a hostile work environment
because the supervisor’s “power and authority invests his or
her harassing conduct with a particular threatening charac-
ter.” Ante, at 763.

Section 219(2)(d) of the Restatement provides no basis
whatsoever for imposing vicarious liability for a supervisor’s
creation of a hostile work environment. Contrary to the
Court’s suggestions, the principle embodied in § 219(2)(d) has
nothing to do with a servant’s “power and authority,” nor
with whether his actions appear “threatening.” Rather, as
demonstrated by the Restatement’s illustrations,
liability
under § 219(2)(d) depends upon the plaintiff ’s belief that the
agent acted in the ordinary course of business or within the
scope of his apparent authority.4
In this day and age, no
sexually harassed employee can reasonably believe that a har-
assing supervisor is conducting the ofﬁcial business of the
company or acting on its behalf.
Indeed, the Court admits
as much in demonstrating why sexual harassment is not com-
mitted within the scope of a supervisor’s employment and is
not part of his apparent authority. See ante, at 755–760.

Thus although the Court implies that it has found guidance
in both precedent and statute—see ante, at 755 (“The result-
ing federal rule, based on a body of case law developed over
time, is statutory interpretation pursuant to congressional
direction”)—its holding is a product of willful policymaking,
pure and simple. The only agency principle that justiﬁes
imposing employer liability in this context is the principle

4 See Restatement § 219, Comment e; § 261, Comment a (principal liable
for an agent’s fraud if “the agent’s position facilitates the consummation
of the fraud, in that from the point of view of the third person the transac-
tion seems regular on its face and the agent appears to be acting in the
ordinary course of business conﬁded to him”); § 247, Illustrations (news-
paper liable for a defamatory editorial published by editor for his own
purposes).