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 | 524 U.S. 742 (more) 118 S. Ct. 2257; 141 L. Ed. 2d 633 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgment granted, Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D. Ill. 1996); reversed sub. nom., Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1996); cert. granted, 522 U.S. 1086 (1998). |
| Subsequent | On remand, Ellerth v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 165 F.3d 31 (7th Cir. 1998). |
| Holding | |
| An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or higher) authority over the employee, subject to an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action is taken. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, 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), is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees. Ellerth also introduced a two-part affirmative defense allowing employers to avoid sex discrimination liability if they follow best practices. Ellerth is often considered alongside Faragher.