Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
No. 97-569
Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
At issue in this Title VII sexual harassment case is whether a claim of
quid pro quo sexual harassment can be asserted against an employer when
the victim neither submitted to the sexual advances of the perpetrator
nor
suffered tangible adverse effects in terms or conditions of employment
by
refusing to submit to the harassment.
Kimberly Ellerth was hired by Burlington in 1993. During the next year,
her male supervisor made repeated sexual advances to her. She rebuffed
his advances, yet was not tangibly hurt in her employment. She was
even
promoted on one occasion. She resigned from Burlington in 1994 and
filed
suit in federal district court after receiving a right-to-sue letter
from
the EEOC. The court below held that employers may be held strictly
liable
for quid pro quo sexual harassment even if the harassed employee neither
submitted to the supervisor's sexual advances nor suffered adverse
employment consequences.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
