Opinion ID: 1060691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

Text: Ellerth was employed by Burlington as a salesperson for approximately one year. Ellerth's immediate supervisor reported to Slowik. Ellerth alleged that Slowik subjected her to sexual harassment. Her allegations included repeated boorish and offensive remarks and gestures. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. at 2262. First, she claimed that Slowik made comments concerning her breasts and told her that he could make [her] life very hard or very easy at Burlington. Id. Second, she maintained that Slowik informed her she was not loose enough and rubbed her knee during an interview for a promotion. Id. Finally, she alleged that Slowik told her during a telephone conversation that her job would be easier if she wore shorter skirts. Id. Burlington's policy against sexual harassment was contained in the employee's handbook. Ellerth had received the employee's handbook and was aware of the policy. She, however, never complained to anyone in authority concerning her allegations against Slowik. She later quit her job. Id. at 2262-63. Ellerth filed suit in the district court under Title VII alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to Burlington holding that Burlington neither knew or should have known about Slowik's behavior because Ellerth failed to use Burlington's grievance procedures. Id. at 2263. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit sitting en banc issued eight separate opinions with no consensus for a controlling rationale of the standard for employer liability. The majority of the Seventh Circuit, however, did categorize Ellerth's claim as quid pro quo harassment but failed to agree on whether to apply a standard of negligence or vicarious liability.