Burlington Industries v. Ellerth

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1998, ruled (7–2) that—under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sex—employers are liable for workers who sexually harass subordinates, even if the harassed employee does not face any adverse job consequences. However, the court also held that employers can make an affirmative defense in certain cases.

The case involved Kimberly Ellerth, a female salesperson for Burlington Industries who worked in Illinois. She alleged that from 1993 to 1994 a mid-level manager, to whom her immediate supervisor reported, made repeated offensive remarks and gestures, though she never reported his actions to those in authority. Ellerth was promoted, but she said that she was forced to quit, in a situation known as constructive discharge, owing to the manager’s unwelcome comments that referred to her breasts, her buttocks and legs, and how her job would be easier if she “loosened up” and wore shorter skirts.

Ellerth subsequently filed suit, and a federal district court granted Burlington a summary judgment. Although the court believed that the manager’s actions, as described by Ellerth, produced a hostile work environment, it held that Burlington was unaware of his conduct and had no reason to be aware of it. The court further noted Ellerth’s failure to utilize the company’s complaint process. The case then moved to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s decision.

Discover the fascinating events that shaped the world, straight from our editors.

SIGN UP

By clicking “Sign Up”, you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Britannica Quiz

All-American History Quiz

On April 22, 1998, the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. With Burlington and the companion case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), the court modified the circumstances under which employers can be responsible for sexual harassment under Title VII. Earlier cases had placed sexual harassment claims into two categories: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo describes situations where an employee refuses the sexual advances of a superior and then faces an adverse employment action—such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment. In these situations, employers are found strictly or automatically liable. A hostile environment is present where there is unwelcome sexual conduct that unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work environment or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. However, the harassed employee suffers no tangible negative consequences. Most courts do not hold an employer automatically liable for this type of discrimination. While the Supreme Court reasoned in its Burlington decision that these two categories are still helpful in analyzing claims, particularly for the threshold question of whether sexual harassment occurred, these conditions are not required.

Instead, the court established strict employer liability for all circumstances of supervisor sexual harassment, but it gave the employer an opportunity, through an affirmative defense, to show that it should not be held responsible when the employee suffered no tangible adverse employment impact. The court explained that in order to utilize the defense and avoid liability for the harassment, an employer must prove two things: (a) that it took reasonable care to “prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior” and (b) that the employee “unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.”

Under these circumstances, the court affirmed, Ellerth had a claim for sexual harassment. The court remanded the dispute to the district court to allow the parties to present more evidence about the alleged harassment and the company’s actions in remedying it.