Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ellerth (P) worked as a salesperson for Burlington (D), and during her employment, she was subject to constant sexual harassment by her supervisor, Ted Slowik. (The casebook detailed three rather boorish and offensive remarks that under the circumstances of the common rough and the everyday cruel world cannot be considered sexual harassment). P eventually quit her job based on at first unrelated incidents, then three weeks later she sent a letting stating she quit because of Slowik's behavior. During her time at D, P did not inform anyone of Slowik's behavior. P got a right to sue letter from EEOC, and the court granted summary judgment to D even though Slowik's behavior was violative, D did not know of the conduct nor condone it. The Court of Appeals reversed; vicarious liability and not the failure to comply with a duty of care was the essence of P's claim against D. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. A quid pro quo is a term used for cases based on threats, which are carried out. The threats in this instance were not carried out or fulfilled. A hostile work environment is based on bothersome attentions or sexual remarks that are sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working place. Neither of these terms is mentioned in the Title VII statute. Under a quid pro quo claim, the employer was subject to vicarious liability.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co