Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 852

524US2

Unit: U100

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

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

807

Opinion of the Court

failed to avail herself of the employer’s preventive or reme-
dial apparatus, she should not recover damages that could
have been avoided if she had done so.
If the victim could
have avoided harm, no liability should be found against the
employer who had taken reasonable care, and if damages
could reasonably have been mitigated no award against a
liable employer should reward a plaintiff for what her own
efforts could have avoided.

In order to accommodate the principle of vicarious liability
for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well
as Title VII’s equally basic policies of encouraging fore-
thought by employers and saving action by objecting em-
ployees, we adopt the following holding in this case and in
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, ante, p. 742, also de-
cided today. 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 em-
ployment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an
afﬁrmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof
by a preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc.
8(c). The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a)
that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and
correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b)
that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take ad-
vantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities pro-
vided 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 suit-
able 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