Important Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Cases

How to Subscribe
Individual course$25Add to cart
The page below is a sample from the LabCE course Preventing and Addressing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace (Employee-version). Access the complete course and earn ASCLS P.A.C.E.-approved continuing education credits by subscribing online.

Learn more about Preventing and Addressing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace (Employee-version) (online CE course)
Important Sexual Harassment Supreme Court Cases

  • Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson (1986)
    • Vinson engaged in a voluntary sexual relationship with a supervisor; after the relationship ended, she was terminated for time and attendance issues.
    • Court held voluntary does not necessarily mean welcome.
    • For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
    • First recognition that hostile environment sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.
  • Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)
    • Ellerth quit her job - alleged supervisor made numerous threats to retaliate against her if she denied him sexual liberties.
    • The threats were not carried out.
    • Ellerth knew that Burlington had an anti-harassment policy - but did not tell anyone in authority about the harassment.
    • Faragher resigned as a lifeguard - alleged that her two immediate male supervisors created a “sexually hostile atmosphere” at work.
    • Repeatedly subjected her and other female lifeguards to “uninvited and offensive touching,” lewd remarks, and speaking of women in offensive terms.
    • Faragher failed to complain about the harassment during her employment.
Principles of Cases:
  • When sexual harassment by a supervisor results in a tangible employment action against an employee, the employer is automatically liable.
  • If no tangible action is taken, an affirmative defense is available if the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior (has anti-harassment policy and complaint avenues).
  • The employee unreasonably failed to take preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer (failed to take advantage of the complaint process).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) adopted the principles the Supreme Court set forth in Ellerth and Faragher. Additionally, the Commission stated that while the Ellerth and Faragher decisions addressed sexual harassment, the same basic standard of liability applies to all forms of unlawful harassment.