Opinion ID: 3013236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ellerth and Faragher

Text: An understanding of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ellerth and Faragher is essential to the issues on appeal. In both cases, plaintiffs alleged that they endured nearconstant sexual harassment at the hands of their supervisors. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 747; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 780. The harassment included uninvited and offensive touching, lewd remarks, and crude propositions. Both plaintiffs also sought to hold their employers liable pursuant to Title VII for the harassment of their supervisors. Although the plaintiff in Ellerth had also alleged that her supervisor threatened to deny her tangible job benefits if she did not submit to his thinly-veiled demands for sexual favors, the alleged threats never materialized.8 Ellerth, 524 U.S. 747-48. Therefore, despite this variance in the factual allegations, both plaintiffs stood in the same position with respect to Title VII, that is, they had properly stated claims for unlawful discrimination based on a sexually hostile work environment. Id. at 754 (“Because Ellerth’s claim involves only unfulfilled threats, it should be categorized as a hostile work environment claim which requires a showing of severe or pervasive conduct.”) (citations omitted). The issue in both cases, therefore, was “whether an employer has vicarious liability when a supervisor creates a hostile work environment . . . .” Id.; see also Faragher, 524 U.S. at 780 (“This case calls for the identification of the 8. Ellerth’s allegation of a quid pro quo scenario was based in part on an incident in which her supervisor, while making comments about her breasts, told her to “loosen up,” warning that “I could make your life very hard or very easy at Burlington.” Id. at 748 (citations omitted). 25 circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII . . . for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination.”). Before turning to its analysis, the Court noted that in the aftermath of its decision in Meritor, “Courts of Appeals have struggled to derive manageable standards to govern employer liability for hostile environment harassment perpetrated by supervisory employees. . . . [And] the Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 785.9 Therefore, in Ellerth and Faragher, both decided on the same day, the Court sought to delineate “a uniform and predictable standard [for vicarious liability] . . . as a matter of federal law.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 754. In determining the scope of the vicarious liability of an employer for the sexual harassment of its supervisors, the Court turned to principles of agency law. Because the Title VII definition of “employer” includes “any agent,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), the Court noted that “[i]n express terms, Congress has directed federal courts to interpret Title VII 9. The confusion among the Courts of Appeals was due in part to the terminology employed in Meritor to describe different types of Title VII sexual harassment cases. In Meritor, the Court distinguished cases where an employer demands sexual favors in return for job benefits from cases where sexually demeaning behavior—not necessarily constituting a demand for sexual liberties—alters the terms and conditions of employment. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 65; see also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 752. The Court referred to the former as quid pro quo claims and the latter as hostile environment claims. The purpose of the distinction is simply to provide a “rough demarcation” between types of sexual harassment. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 752. The Court held that both were cognizable under Title VII, but that a plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment was required to show harassment that was severe or pervasive. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67. Although the Court did not suggest that these terms should bear on the issue of vicarious liability, the categories acquired a significance of their own. Some Courts of Appeals interpreted Meritor to mean that vicarious liability is appropriate when a plaintiff establishes a quid pro quo claim. See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 753 (citing cases). This development encouraged plaintiffs to state their claims as quid pro quo claims, when in fact, the distinction was never meant to inform the vicarious liability analysis. 26 based on agency principles.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 754. It also cautioned, however, that “common-law principles may not be transferrable in all their particulars to Title VII.” Id. at 764 (quoting Meritor, 477 U.S. at 72). The appropriate starting point is the Restatement (Second) of Agency (1957) (the “Restatement”). Meritor, 477 U.S. at 72; Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 755. The Restatement provision of direct relevance to this appeal is section 219(2),10 which sets forth several situations in which an employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employees acting solely for their own purposes: (2) A master is not subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment, unless: 10. Before turning to § 219(2), the Court left open the possibility of a limited basis for vicarious liability in § 219(1), which states that “[a] master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.” Restatement § 219(1) (emphasis added). An action within the “scope of employment,” is defined by other sections of the Restatement as one “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the [employer].” Restatement §§ 228(1)(c); see also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 756-57. The Court recognized that when a supervisor commits sexual harassment, those actions generally are not actuated by a purpose to serve the employer. In fact, most employers today, it is hoped, condemn sexual harassment in the workplace, and the typical harassing supervisor acts on his or her own animus. See id.; see also Faragher, 524 U.S. at 793-94; Bouton v. BMW of North America, Inc., 29 F.3d 103, 106-07 (3d Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the Court left open the possibility that “a supervisor [may] engage[ ] in unlawful discrimination with the purpose, mistaken or otherwise, to serve the employer,” for instance, where an employer has a policy of discouraging women from seeking advancement. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 757. We note that the record presented in Suders’s appeal does not support the inference that the PA State Police officers were acting in the scope of their employment. Therefore, § 219(1) is not relevant to this appeal as a basis for imposing vicarious liability. We leave aside other possible bases for liability that are not relevant to Suders’s appeal: cases in which the position of the harasser makes him an alter ego of the employer; and cases in which the employee reasonably, but wrongly, believes that the harasser is a supervisor. See Durham Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 166 F.3d 139, 152 n.8 (3d Cir. 1999). 27
consequences, or
(c) the conduct violated a non-delegable duty of the master, or (d) the servant purported to act or to speak on behalf of the principal and there was reliance upon apparent authority, or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. Restatement § 219(2) (emphasis added); see also Restatement § 219, Comment e. As in Ellerth and Faragher, Suders does not allege that the PA State Police itself intended to harass her or that there is a non-delegable duty at issue. Therefore, subsections (a) and (c) of section 219(2) are not relevant to this appeal. Section 219(2)(b) might arguably apply if Suders had alleged that the PA State Police was negligent in that it “knew or should have known about” the harassment and failed to stop it. See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 759. Because she conceded that she resigned only two days after making her first formal complaint to SmithElliott, Suders implicitly acknowledges that the PA State Police was not aware of what had transpired at the McConnellsburg barracks, thus precluding vicarious liability under subsection (b). Finally, Suders does not allege that the PA State Police officers purported to exercise authority that they did not have, and therefore, the “apparent authority” clause of section 219(2)(d) is also inapplicable here. Thus, as in Ellerth and Faragher, vicarious liability must be premised on the second clause of section 219(2)(d), which provides for the vicarious liability of an employer for the tortious acts of an employee when the latter is “aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation.” This has come to be known as the “aided in the agency relation standard.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 759. In the context of Title VII, the Supreme Court recognized that “it makes sense to hold an employer vicariously liable for some tortious conduct of a supervisor made possible by abuse of his supervisory authority, and that the aided-by-agencyrelation principle embodied in § 219(2)(d) of the 28 Restatement provides an appropriate starting point for determining liability for the kind of harassment presented here.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 802. While the Court found an appropriate starting point in the aided in the agency relation standard, it also recognized an inherent definitional problem: broadly speaking, most workplace harassment occurs because men and women are brought together as co-workers in close quarters. In that sense, all harassment is aided by the agency relationship put in place by employers. The Court cautioned that “[w]ere this to satisfy the aided in the agency relation standard, an employer would be subject to vicarious liability not only for all supervisor harassment, but also for all co-worker harassment, a result enforced by neither the EEOC nor any court of appeals to have considered the issue.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 760 (emphasis added). In that regard, it is important to note the clear limitations of the aided in the agency relation standard as a basis for vicarious liability. Specifically, the Supreme Court recognized, and we reiterate here, a clear distinction between supervisors and co-workers. This recognition derives from the simple fact that, for purposes of liability, only supervisors, because of the authority vested in them by their employers and because of the rank they possess over others, may be aided by the agency relation in the commission of actionable harassment.11 11. See Faragher, 524 U.S. at 803. The Court noted that “[r]ecognition of employer liability when discriminatory misuse of supervisory authority alters the terms and conditions of a victim’s employment is underscored by the fact that the employer has a greater opportunity to guard against misconduct by supervisors than by common workers; employers have greater opportunity and incentive to screen them, train them, and monitor their performance.” Id. In addition to the special relationship between employers and supervisors, harassment by a supervisor takes on different dimensions than harassment by a co-worker: “When a fellow employee harasses, the victim can walk away or tell the offender where to go, but it may be difficult to offer such responses to a supervisor, whose ‘power to supervise’—[which may be] to hire and fire, and to set work schedules and pay rates—does not disappear . . . when he chooses to harass through insults and offensive gestures rather than directly with threats 29 The distinction between supervisors and co-workers is a crucial limitation worth reiterating, but by design, it simply precludes vicarious liability under the aided in the agency relation standard for a category of would-be harassers, coworkers. The distinction does not fundamentally alter the breadth of § 219(2)(d) as written. Without further qualification, the aided in the agency relation standard risks holding the employer “automatically” liable for a supervisor’s harassment without regard to the nature of the supervisor’s conduct, a result that the Court forbade in Meritor, 477 U.S. at 72. See also Faragher, 524 U.S. at 804. Therefore, the Court found that in order to impose vicarious liability on an employer under the aided in the agency relation standard, “something more” would be required. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 760.12 The Court’s resolution of this question reflects an intricate balance incorporated into a complex rule of law with multiple components. of firing or promises of promotion.” Id. (citing Estrich, Sex at Work, 43 STAN. L. REV. 813, 854 (1991)). At oral argument, the PA State Police contended that none of the individual officers had the requisite authority to commit a tangible employment action because they could not discharge or demote Suders. We reject this attempt to rein in the scope of a supervisor within the meaning of Ellerth and Faragher. The record in this case clearly reflected that (1) Easton was responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the McConnellsburg barracks; and (2) both Baker and Prendergast had supervisory duties with respect to “running [their] shift[s].” App. at 215. No more is required to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to their supervisory authority. We are not persuaded, however, that the actions of Smith-Elliot amounted to actionable harassment. Her supervisory authority over Suders was not clearly established in the record below. Although her conduct is relevant, especially to the affirmative defense, we strain to see how it alone substantiates a claim under Title VII. Nevertheless, in light of our remand, these issues may be addressed on the merits. 12. See also Faragher, 524 U.S. at 797 (“The proper analysis here, then, calls not for a mechanical application of indefinite and malleable factors set forth in the Restatement . . . , but rather an inquiry into the reasons that would support a conclusion that harassing behavior ought to be held within the scope of a supervisor’s employment, and the reasons for the opposite view.”). 30 First, the Court identified a class of supervisory actions for which more than the mere existence of the agency relation is unquestionably required for the commission of the alleged harassment: “when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against the subordinate.” Id. When a supervisor’s actions result in a tangible employment action, the employer shall be strictly liable for the actionable harassment of its supervisors, without regard to an affirmative defense. Id. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 808. The Court’s discussion of the attributes of a tangible employment action is critical to the present appeal. In broad strokes, a tangible employment action “constitutes a significant change in employment status.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761. A tangible employment action is also defined by reference to a non-exclusive list of representative workplace actions, “such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Id. at 761 (emphasis added); see also Faragher, 524 U.S. at 790. In most cases, but not always, “a tangible employment action . . . inflicts direct economic harm.” Finally, a tangible employment action implicates, in some meaningful way, the authority of the employer itself: “A tangible employment decision requires an official act of the enterprise, a company act. The decision in most cases is documented in official company records, and may be subject to review by higher level supervisors. . . . The supervisor often must obtain the imprimatur of the enterprise and use its internal processes.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762 (emphases added). Second, when a supervisor’s harassment does not amount to a tangible employment action, the Court found it unclear whether the aided in the agency relation standard should support vicarious liability. In that regard, we noted above that the risk of holding the employer “automatically” liable for the acts of its supervisors was too great. Id. at 763 (“[W]e are bound by our holding in Meritor that agency principles constrain the imposition of vicarious liability in cases of supervisory harassment.”) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, for actions that fall short of a tangible employment action, but would otherwise be 31 actionable under Title VII, the Court did not give employers a free pass from liability. In cases where a supervisor’s harassment does not result in a tangible employment action, the Court made available to employers an affirmative defense, an approach designed to further the well-recognized Title VII goals of encouraging antiharassment policies and effective mechanisms for addressing employee complaints. See id. at 764; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 806. Therefore, in both Ellerth and Faragher, the Court adopted the following holding: An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c). The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. . . . No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807-08.