Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

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.

As distinguished from cases of supervisory harassment, an employer may not be held liable for a sexually hostile environment created by a victim's co-worker unless the employer knew or should have known about the sexual harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. Accordingly, in assessing the potential for employer liability it is important to determine, in the first instance, whether the alleged harasser is properly classified as a supervisor or a co-worker for Title VII purposes.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.