Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Opinions Responsibility for Sexual Harassment in the United States
Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Opinions Responsibility for Sexual Harassment
Introduction to Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Opinions Responsibility for Sexual Harassment
The Supreme Court has decided several cases regarding when employers and educational institutions are legally responsible (liable) for sexual harassment by employees. An employer or educational institution that is deemed liable must pay monetary damages to the victim of sexual harassment.
In its 1986 decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Court refused to issue a definitive rule on employer liability under Title VII. However, the Court noted that the general principles of agency should govern responsibility for sexual harassment. Under these principles, employers can be liable for certain wrongdoings by their supervisory employees (agents) because of the legal relationship between the two parties. For example, employers are liable for harm caused by their supervisory employees if the employee’s role as a supervisor helped him or her carry out the harmful actions. Applying these principles, lower courts have generally found employers liable for sexual harassment when managers took tangible, job-related action-such as unwarranted termination or demotion-against employees who refused their sexual advances.
In 1998 the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that clarified employer liability when supervisory employees sexually harass subordinates by creating a hostile work environment but do not take specific job-related actions against the victims. In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the Court ruled that employers are potentially liable for sexual harassment by supervisory employees even if the victim did not experience ‘tangible retaliation’ or was not denied tangible job benefits. In the Ellerth case a female salesperson alleged that she had been continually harassed by a male supervisor. Ellerth testified that the supervisor touched her inappropriately and indicated that he could make her life ‘very hard or very easy’ at the company depending on whether she ‘loosened up’ sexually. However, she did not suffer any tangible job detriment (other than the hostile working environment) when she did not accept his advances. In Faragher, a female lifeguard claimed that she was subjected to ongoing and pervasive crude remarks and unwanted touching. However, she also testified that her male supervisors made no specific sexual demands.
In deciding that employers may still be liable for such harassment, the Court reasoned that an employee’s supervisory status may help him or her to sexually harass a subordinate, even if the supervisor does not use his or her authority to take specific retaliatory actions against a victim. However, the Court also stated that employers may defend against such liability by showing that they ‘exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly’ any improper behavior. The Court indicated that an employer’s failure to adopt an antiharassment policy and effectively communicate it to employees may demonstrate a lack of reasonable care. To avoid liability, employers must also demonstrate that the victim ‘unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.’ For example, a victim’s failure to formally report the harassment to company officials could be considered unreasonable in some cases. However, the Court noted that a victim’s failure to report harassment might be reasonable if the employer’s policy did not guarantee that the victim could register a complaint without the harassing supervisor’s knowledge.
The Supreme Court has not addressed employer liability for sexual harassment among coworkers. Federal guidelines indicate that employers would be responsible for such sexual harassment if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct, unless the employer can show that it took immediate corrective action.
In a third 1998 decision, Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Court narrowly defined the liability of school districts for sexual harassment of students by teachers. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the liability of school districts under Title IX should be the same as employer liability under Title VII. In other words, the plaintiff asserted that if the authority of the teacher helped him or her to sexually harass a student, the school district should be liable. Instead, the Court ruled that a student who is sexually harassed by a teacher may only recover damages from a school district if an official with authority over the teacher knew about the misconduct and was “deliberately indifferent’ to it.
In 1999 the Court ruled that institutions covered by Title IX may also be financially liable for sexual harassment of students by other students, sometimes referred to as peer harassment. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Court ruled that victims of peer harassment are entitled to monetary damages from the school only if a school official was aware of the misconduct and, showing deliberate indifference, failed to take proper remedial action. The Court also indicated that in order to receive damages, the victim must demonstrate that the harassment was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive’ that it effectively denied the victim access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” (1)
Resources
Notes and References
- Information about Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Opinions Responsibility for Sexual Harassment in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia
Leave a Reply