Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 38

4 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

In such a case, however, the employer may avoid liability 
by  showing  that  (1)  it  exercised  reasonable  care  to  pre-
vent  and  promptly  correct  harassing  behavior,  and  (2) 
the complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of 
preventative or corrective measures made available to her. 
Faragher, 524 U. S., at 807; Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765.  The 
employer bears the burden of establishing this affirmative
defense  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.  Faragher, 
524 U. S., at 807; Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765. 

In  contrast,  if  the  harassing  employee  is  a  co-worker,  a
negligence standard applies.  To satisfy that standard, the
complainant must show that the employer knew or should
have  known  of  the  offensive  conduct  but  failed  to  take 
appropriate corrective action.  See Faragher, 524 U. S., at 
799;  Ellerth,  524  U. S.,  at  758–759.    See  also  29  CFR 
§1604.11(d) (2012); EEOC Guidance 405:7652. 

B 
  The  distinction  Faragher  and  Ellerth  drew  between 
supervisors and co-workers corresponds to the realities of 
the  workplace.  Exposed  to  a  fellow  employee’s  harass-
ment, one can walk away or tell the offender to “buzz off.” 
A  supervisor’s  slings  and  arrows,  however,  are  not  so 
easily avoided.  An employee who confronts her harassing
supervisor risks, for example, receiving an undesirable or
unsafe  work  assignment  or  an  unwanted  transfer.  She 
may be saddled with an excessive workload or with place-
ment  on  a  shift  spanning  hours  disruptive  of  her  family 
life.    And  she  may  be  demoted  or  fired.  Facing  such
dangers,  she  may  be  reluctant  to  blow  the  whistle  on  her 
superior,  whose  “power  and  authority  invests  his  or  her
harassing  conduct  with  a  particular  threatening  charac-
ter.”  Ellerth,  524  U. S.,  at  763.  See  also  Faragher,  524 
U. S.,  at  803;  Brief  for  Respondent  23  (“The  potential
threat to one’s livelihood or working conditions will make 
the  victim  think  twice  before  resisting  harassment  or