Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 818

524US2

Unit: $U99

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 742 (1998)

773

Thomas, J., dissenting

that a master will be liable for a servant’s torts if the master
was negligent or reckless in permitting them to occur; and
as noted, under a negligence standard, Burlington cannot be
held liable. See supra, at 771.

The Court’s decision is also in considerable tension with
our holding in Meritor that employers are not strictly liable
for a supervisor’s sexual harassment. See Meritor Savings
Bank, FSB v. Vinson, supra, at 72. Although the Court
recognizes an afﬁrmative defense—based solely on its divina-
tion of Title VII’s gestalt, see ante, at 764—it provides shock-
ingly little guidance about how employers can actually avoid
vicarious liability.
it issues only Delphic pro-
nouncements and leaves the dirty work to the lower courts:

Instead,

“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 suitable to the employment cir-
cumstances 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 corre-
sponding 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
demonstration of such failure will normally sufﬁce to
satisfy the employer’s burden under the second element
of the defense.” Ante, at 765.

What these statements mean for district courts ruling on
motions for summary judgment––the critical question for
employers now subject to the vicarious liability rule—
remains a mystery. Moreover, employers will be liable not-
withstanding the afﬁrmative defense, even though they acted
reasonably, so long as the plaintiff in question fulﬁlled her
duty of reasonable care to avoid harm. See ibid.
In prac-
tice, therefore, employer liability very well may be the rule.