Opinion ID: 2520995
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Ellerth and Faragher decisions

Text: The United States Supreme Court treated Ellerth, supra, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633, and Faragher, supra, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662, as companion cases, issuing opinions authored by different justices on the same day. In each case, a female employee had quit her job and filed an action in federal district court claiming hostile environment sexual harassment by a male supervisor in violation of Title VII. ( Ellerth, supra, at pp. 747-748, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, at pp. 781-782, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) In each case, the employee had not complained to management before resigning. ( Ellerth, supra, at pp. 748-749, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, at p. 782, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) The employer in Faragher had adopted a sexual harassment policy, but had failed to effectively communicate it to the department in which the employee and her supervisors had worked. ( Faragher, supra, at pp. 781-782, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) In Ellerth, the federal district court found that the supervisor's conduct had created a hostile work environment, but it nonetheless granted summary judgment for the employer because the employer neither knew nor should have known about the conduct. ( Ellerth, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 749, 118 S.Ct. 2257.) In Faragher, the district court found the employer liable and awarded the employee one dollar in nominal damages. ( Faragher, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 783, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) In both cases, the United States Supreme Court announced in identical language this standard of employer liability: 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. ( Ellerth, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) But the court recognized a defense that the employer could assert in this situation: 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.... 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. ( Ellerth, supra, at p. 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, at p. 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) The high court concluded that this affirmative defense was consistent with agency principles, which the court inferred that Congress had intended courts to apply to determine the scope of an employer's vicarious liability under Title VII for acts of a supervisor. ( Ellerth, supra, 524 U.S. at pp. 754-762, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, 524 U.S. at pp. 793-804, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) The court also concluded that Title VII incorporated the common law doctrine of avoidable consequences, and that the affirmative defense was consistent with this doctrine. ( Ellerth, supra, at p. 764, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, at pp. 806-807, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) Finally, as support for its recognition of the affirmative defense, the court relied on an analysis of the purposes underlying Title VII. The court observed that Title VII's primary purpose was not to provide redress but to avoid harm. ( Faragher, supra, at p. 806, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) Giving employers an incentive to make reasonable efforts to prevent workplace harassment would implement this legislative purpose. ( Ibid. ) And the court found in Title VII a design to encourage the creation of antiharassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms. ( Ellerth, supra, at p. 764., 118 S.Ct. 2257) In Ellerth, the high court directed that the matter be remanded to the federal district court for further proceedings. ( Ellerth, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 766, 118 S.Ct. 2257.) In Faragher, the district court's judgment for the employee was affirmed. ( Faragher, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 810, 118 S.Ct. 2275.) As a matter of law, the high court held that the employer in Faragher could not invoke the affirmative defense because it had entirely failed to disseminate its policy against sexual harassment among the affected employees and had made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors. ( Id. at p. 808, 118 S.Ct. 2275.)