Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Do You Know Who Your 'Supervisors' Are?

By Lawrence Peikes and Lori Rittman Clark
October 01, 2003

Historically, the federal courts have been far from uniform in their views regarding the circumstances under which employers may be held liable for sexually harassing conduct committed by their supervisory personnel. In June of 1998, however, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, in which the Court clarified the standard to be employed in determining employer liability for a sexually hostile work environment created by a supervisor. In Faragher and Ellerth, the Supreme Court ruled that employers are strictly liable for acts of sexual harassment perpetrated by their supervisory-level employees that are so egregious as to violate Title VII. Notably, the Court left open the definition of “supervisor.”

The Supreme Court also recognized an affirmative defense in the Faragher and Ellerth cases, which is available where an employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and where the complaining employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer, or to avoid harm otherwise. Thus, an employer who successfully asserts the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense may be able to avoid liability for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors. Both elements of the defense must be satisfied for the employer to avoid liability. The defense is not available, however, where the complaining employee alleges that he or she suffered a “tangible employment action,” such as a termination, reduction in pay or demotion, as a consequence of the alleged sexual harassment.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.