Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 795

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

750

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Opinion of the Court

of America, 123 F. 3d 490, 494 (CA7 1997) (per curiam).
With the exception of Judges Coffey and Easterbrook, the
judges also agreed Ellerth’s claim could be categorized as
one of quid pro quo harassment, even though she had
received the promotion and had suffered no other tangible
retaliation.

Ibid.

The consensus disintegrated on the standard for an em-
ployer’s liability for such a claim. Six judges, Judges Flaum,
Cummings, Bauer, Evans, Rovner, and Diane P. Wood,
agreed the proper standard was vicarious liability, and so
Ellerth could recover even though Burlington was not negli-
gent.
Ibid. They had different reasons for the conclusion.
According to Judges Flaum, Cummings, Bauer, and Evans,
whether a claim involves a quid pro quo determines whether
vicarious liability applies; and they in turn deﬁned quid pro
quo to include a supervisor’s threat to inﬂict a tangible job
Id., at 499.
injury whether or not it was completed.
Judges Wood and Rovner interpreted agency principles to
impose vicarious liability on employers for most claims of
supervisor sexual harassment, even absent a quid pro quo.
Id., at 565.

Although Judge Easterbrook did not think Ellerth had
stated a quid pro quo claim, he would have followed the law
of the controlling State to determine the employer’s liability,
and by this standard, the employer would be liable here.
Id., at 552.
In contrast, Judge Kanne said Ellerth had
stated a quid pro quo claim, but negligence was the appro-
priate standard of liability when the quid pro quo involved
threats only.

Id., at 505.

Chief Judge Posner, joined by Judge Manion, disagreed.
He asserted Ellerth could not recover against Burlington de-
spite having stated a quid pro quo claim. According to
Chief Judge Posner, an employer is subject to vicarious lia-
bility for “act[s] that signiﬁcantly alte[r] the terms or condi-
tions of employment,” or “company act[s].”
In
the emergent terminology, an unfulﬁlled quid pro quo is a

Id., at 515.