Recent United States Supreme Court cases have redefined and revised sexual harassment law. These links
to specific cases will take you to sites that contain the text of the decisions and links to other
case law at Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth
Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months as a salesperson in one of Burlington Industries'
many divisions, allegedly because she had been subjected to constant sexual harassment by one
of her supervisors. Her supervisor was a mid-level manager who had authority to hire and
promote employees, subject to higher approval, but was not considered a policy-maker. The
supervisor made repeated boorish and offensive remarks and gestures. Ellerth alleged that three
of these incidents could be construed as threats to deny her tangible job benefits. Ellerth refused
all of Slowik's advances, yet suffered no tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once.
Moreover, she never informed anyone in authority about Slowik's conduct, despite knowing
Burlington had a policy against sexual harassment. The Supreme Court decided in favor of
Kimberly Ellerth.
Joseph Oncale vs. Sundowner Offshore Services
In late October 1991, Oncale was working for Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S.
A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man
crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the
crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority. On several occasions, Oncale
was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and
Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assaulted
Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape.
Oncale's complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the
company's Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen "picked
[on] him all the time too," and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Oncale eventually
quit asking that his pink slip reflect that he "voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal
abuse."
Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment because of
his sex. The Court decided for Oncale.
Beth Ann Faragher, Petitioner V. City Of Boca Raton
Between 1985 and 1990 Beth Ann Faragher worked part time and during the summers as an
ocean lifeguard for the Marine Safety Section of the Parks and Recreation Department of the City
of Boca Raton, Florida. During this period, Faragher's immediate supervisors created a
"sexually hostile atmosphere" at the beach by repeatedly subjecting Faragher and other female
lifeguards to "uninvited and offensive touching," by making lewd remarks, and by speaking of
women in offensive terms. The complaint contained specific allegations that Terry once said that
he would never promote a woman to the rank of lieutenant, and that Silverman had said to
Faragher, "Date me or clean the toilets for a year." Asserting that Terry and Silverman were
agents of the City, and that their conduct amounted to discrimination in the "terms, conditions,
and privileges" of her employment, Faragher sought a judgment against the City for nominal
damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Court decided in favor of Faragher.
Alida Star Gebser And Alida Jean Mccullough, Petitioners V. Lago Vista
Independent School District
In the spring of 1991 Alida Star Gebser was an eighth-grade student at a middle school in Lago
Vista Independent School District. She joined a high school book discussion group led by Frank
Waldrop, a teacher at Lago Vista's high school. Lago Vista received federal funds at all pertinent
times. During the book discussion sessions, Waldrop often made sexually suggestive comments
to the students. Gebser entered high school in the fall and was assigned to classes taught by
Waldrop in both semesters. Waldrop continued to make inappropriate remarks to the students,
and he began to direct more of his suggestive comments toward Gebser, including during the
substantial amount of time that the two were alone in his classroom. He initiated sexual contact
with Gebser in the spring, when, while visiting her home ostensibly to give her a book, he kissed
and fondled her. The two had sexual intercourse on a number of occasions during the remainder
of the school year. Their relationship continued through the summer and into the following
school year, and they often had intercourse during class time, although never on school property.
Gebser did not report the relationship to school officials, testifying that while she realized
Waldrop's conduct was improper, she was uncertain how to react and she wanted to continue
having him as a teacher. In October 1992, the parents of two other students complained to the
high school principal about Waldrop's comments in class. The principal arranged a meeting at
which, according to the principal, Waldrop indicated that he did not believe he had made
offensive remarks but apologized to the parents and said it would not happen again. The
principal also advised Waldrop to be careful about his classroom comments and told the school
guidance counselor about the meeting, but he did not report the parents' complaint to Lago Vista's
superintendent, who was the district's Title IX coordinator. A couple of months later, in January
1993, a police officer discovered Waldrop and Gebser engaging in sexual intercourse and
arrested Waldrop. Lago Vista terminated his employment, and subsequently, the Texas Education
Agency revoked his teaching license. During this time, the district had not promulgated or
distributed an official grievance procedure for lodging sexual harassment complaints, nor had it
issued a formal anti-harassment policy.
Gebser and her mother filed suit against Lago Vista and Waldrop in state court in November
1993, raising claims against the school district under Title IX, Rev. Stat. ¤1979, 42 U.S.C. ¤
1983 and state negligence law, and claims against Waldrop primarily under state law. They
sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants. The Court decided against
Gebser.
