BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH () F.3d , affirmed. Syllabus, Opinion [ Kennedy ], Concurrence [ Ginsburg ], Dissent [ Thomas ]. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 , , ruled (7–2) that—under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , which. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth. Determined whether an employee who suffered sexual harassment by a supervisor can recover damages against her.

Author: Voodoobei Sarn
Country: Mauritania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 9 October 2007
Pages: 76
PDF File Size: 9.62 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.43 Mb
ISBN: 968-4-60836-284-9
Downloads: 87763
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gogrel

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth Case Brief – Quimbee

Earlier cases had placed sexual harassment claims into two categories: When discrimination is thus proved, the factors discussed below, not the categories quid pro quo and hostile work environment, control on the issue of vicarious liability.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in. Given this express direction, the Court concludes a uniform and predictable standard must be established as a matter of federal law. Racine examine whether an employee’s failure to take advantage of the policy was unreasonable, but Ellerth holds that when the policy requires reporting to a harasser, it is not unreasonable to fail to do so. Headquarters are in Greensboro, N.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth | Legal Momentum

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. Sign in with Google.


A Tangible Employment Action makes the company vicariously liable because the agency relationship was used to take the action. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Title I of the act guarantees…. incc

Generally, having an effective sexual harassment policy that is used and works is sufficient to industroes the first prong. Thus, the general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within the scope of employment. Proximity and regular contact afford a captive pool of potential victims. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that Congress had left it to the courts to determine the controlling principles.

Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed. The Seventh Circuit en banc reversed in a decision that produced eight separate opinions and no consensus for a controlling rationale.

An intentional tort is within the scope of employment when actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Articles with short description.

However, the court also held that employers can make an affirmative defense in certain cases. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Retrieved from ” https: Access in your class – works on your mobile and tablet.

Easy to useuniform format for every case brief. Such an additional aid burlinbton when a supervisor subjects a subordinate to a significant, tangible employment action, i.


Written in plain English – not in legalese and not just repeating the court’s language. Encyclopedia of Women’s History in America.

You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Please try again later. Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval.

Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions. Read our student testimonials. However, the harassed employee suffers no tangible negative consequences.

The Court relies on the general common law of agency, rather than on the law of any particular State. Views Read Edit View history. Summary judgment granted, Ellerth v.

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth

Kimberly Ellerth plaintiff was a salesperson for Burlington Industries, Inc. It is often called the most important U. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v.

Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool. The rule of law is the black incustries law upon which the court rested its decision.