Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure Original On Schedule
tiffany Title and Citation: Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)
Type of Action: Kimberly Ellerth filed a lawsuit against Burlington in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act- sexual harassment.
Facts of the Case: Kimberly Ellerth has been working as a salesperson in one of the Burlington industries, among many divisions. She currently quit her job after 15 months, allegedly because she has been subjected to constant sexual harassment by one of her supervisors. Ted Slowik. Slowik is a middle-level manager with the authority to hire and promote employees, subject to higher approval, but he is not among the Burlington industry policymakers. Ellerth alleges that Slowik made repeated boorish and offensive remarks ad gestures to her and emphasizes incidents that Slowik’s comments could be construed as threats to deny her tangible job benefits such as promotion. Ellerth attests to refusing all Slowik’s sexual advances but has suffered no tangible retaliation, and while in the job, she was promoted once. Moreover, Ellerth has never informed anyone of the sexual harassment she is experiencing from the supervisor, even though she is aware that Burlington has policies informing against sexual harassment. While filing the lawsuit, Ellerthalleged that Burlington engaged in sexual harassment through supervisor Ted Slowik and forced her constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Contentions of the Parties Ellerth Argues that the Burlington industry has violated Title VII protecting against sexual harassment in the workplace since Slowik made repeated boorish and offensive remarks and gestures to her, which could be construed as threats to deny her tangible job benefits such as promotion.
Burlington argues that Ellerth unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employers within the industry or to avoid harm from sexual harassment. While proof that an employer had promulgated an anti-harassment policy with a complaint, it is not necessary for every circumstance within the court that the case may be addressed when the first element of the defense is litigated. Issue(s): Is the employer vicariously liable for the discriminatory harassment committed by the supervisor?
Decision: yes. The employer is vicariously liable for the discriminatory harassment committed by the supervisor in an actionable hostile environment. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense that the employer should exercise reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment.
Reasoning: The court ruled the case this way because the employer was vicariously liable for any actionable hostile to the work environment created by the supervisor, who is in authority over the employee if the conduct was communicated and they failed to stop it. However, because the supervisor took no tangible job benefits against her, the defense would affirm that it would take reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment behavior, and the employee failed to do so.
Rule of Law: 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.
No less than 100 words, respond to this persons discussion
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Secure Original On Schedule