Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 851

524US2

Unit: U100

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

806

FARAGHER v. BOCA RATON

Opinion of the Court

ination,” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 418
(1975), its “primary objective,” like that of any statute meant
to inﬂuence primary conduct, is not to provide redress but
to avoid harm.
Id., at 417. As long ago as 1980, the EEOC,
charged with the enforcement of Title VII, 42 U. S. C.
§ 2000e–4, adopted regulations advising employers to “take
all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from oc-
curring, such as . . . informing employees of their right to
raise and how to raise the issue of harassment.” 29 CFR
§ 1604.11(f) (1997), and in 1990 the EEOC issued a policy
statement enjoining employers to establish a complaint pro-
cedure “designed to encourage victims of harassment to
come forward [without requiring] a victim to complain ﬁrst
to the offending supervisor.” EEOC Policy Guidance on
Sexual Harassment, 8 FEP Manual 405:6699 (Mar. 19, 1990)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
It would therefore im-
plement clear statutory policy and complement the Govern-
ment’s Title VII enforcement efforts to recognize the em-
ployer’s afﬁrmative obligation to prevent violations and give
credit here to employers who make reasonable efforts to dis-
Indeed, a theory of vicarious liability for
charge their duty.
misuse of supervisory power would be at odds with the stat-
utory policy if it failed to provide employers with some
such incentive.

The requirement to show that the employee has failed in a
coordinate duty to avoid or mitigate harm reﬂects an equally
obvious policy imported from the general theory of damages,
that a victim has a duty “to use such means as are reasonable
under the circumstances to avoid or minimize the damages”
that result from violations of the statute. Ford Motor Co.
v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 231, n. 15 (1982) (quoting C. McCor-
mick, Law of Damages 127 (1935) (internal quotation marks
omitted). An employer may, for example, have provided a
proven, effective mechanism for reporting and resolving
complaints of sexual harassment, available to the employee
If the plaintiff unreasonably
without undue risk or expense.