United States Supreme Court
Sexual harassment has been a serious problem in the workplace for over a century. Under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the problem was publicly acknowledged and women provided a formal legal remedy.
Enforcement under Title VII was spotty at best until the national publicity emerging from the U.S. Senate’s
callous dismissal of the sexual harassment allegations surrounding Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.
Since then, greater recognition of the problem has led to the election to public office of more women
Democrats and the formulation of corporate policies to prevent harassment and thereby protect companies
from lawsuits.
Kimberly Ellerth was harassed for 15 months by a supervisor while working at Burlington Industries. She
refused all the supervisor’s advances, suffered no tangible retaliation, and was even promoted once. She
did not follow the company’s guidelines for reporting the problem because the report would have been routed
through her tormentor’s office. In what ways does the Supreme Court define sexual harassment in this case,
and for others to come? What is meant by a "pattern of severe or pervasive conduct"? Locate
the basis for deciding why the company is still liable, and on what grounds Ellerth (and other women in
the future) may sue under Title VII. |
