Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Argued April 22, 1998 Decided June 26, 1998 | |||||||
Full case name | Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth | ||||||
Citations | |||||||
Argument | Oral argument | ||||||
Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
Case opinions | |||||||
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer | ||||||
Concurrence | Ginsburg | ||||||
Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia | ||||||
Laws applied | |||||||
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees.
Kimberly Ellerth, a female employee at Burlington Industries, sued the company for sexual harassment on the part of her male supervisor. She alleged the vice president of sales made offensive remarks and unwanted overtures. She identified three episodes involving threats to deny tangible job benefits unless sexual favors were granted. She alleged a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lower court dismissed her claim, noting that she had suffered no actual negative job consequences. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision, but issued 8 separate opinions.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Justice Kennedy said the Congress has left it to the courts to determine the controlling principles. This majority ruling was summarized as follows:
- Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover against the employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor's actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense.[2]
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by William Renquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion. Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Antonin Scalia.[3]
References
- ↑ "BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH". Google Scholar. Retrieved 6 September 2015.
- ↑ Kathryn Cullen-DuPont (2009). Encyclopedia of Women's History in America. Infobase Publishing. pp. 38–39.
- ↑ "BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH". Retrieved 6 September 2015.
Further reading
- Cullen-DuPont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women's History in America (Infobase Publishing, 2009) pp 38-39
- Perry Alan Zirkel; Sharon Nalbone Richardson; Steven Selig Goldberg (2001). A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Education. Phi Delta Kappa International. p. 210.