Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 813.0

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

768

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Thomas, J., dissenting

claim of so-called “disparate treatment.” A disparate treat-
ment claim required a plaintiff to prove an adverse employ-
ment consequence and discriminatory intent by his employer.
See 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimi-
nation Law 10–11 (3d ed. 1996). A hostile environment
claim required the plaintiff to show that his work environ-
ment was so pervaded by racial harassment as to alter the
terms and conditions of his employment. See, e. g., Snell v.
Suffolk Cty., 782 F. 2d 1094, 1103 (CA2 1986) (“To establish
a hostile atmosphere, . . . plaintiffs must prove more than a
few isolated incidents of racial enmity”); Johnson v. Bunny
Bread Co., 646 F. 2d 1250, 1257 (CA8 1981) (no violation of
Title VII from infrequent use of racial slurs). This is the
same standard now used when determining whether sexual
harassment renders a work environment hostile. See Har-
ris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17, 21 (1993) (ac-
tionable sexual harassment occurs when the workplace is
“permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks and cita-
tion omitted)).

In race discrimination cases, employer liability has turned
on whether the plaintiff has alleged an adverse employment
consequence, such as ﬁring or demotion, or a hostile work
environment.
If a supervisor takes an adverse employment
action because of race, causing the employee a tangible job
detriment, the employer is vicariously liable for resulting
damages. See ante, at 760–761. This is because such ac-
tions are company acts that can be performed only by the
exercise of speciﬁc authority granted by the employer, and
thus the supervisor acts as the employer.
If, on the other
hand, the employee alleges a racially hostile work environ-
ment, the employer is liable only for negligence: that is, only
if the employer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, about the harassment and failed to take
remedial action. See, e. g., Dennis v. Cty. of Fairfax, 55 F.
3d 151, 153 (CA4 1995); Davis v. Monsanto Chemical Co.,