Which Supreme Court case established when an employer can be held liable for workplace sexual harassment by a supervisor?

• A. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
• B. Ellerth v. Burlington Industries
• C. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
• D. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services

Answer: (A)

When a supervisor’s sexual harassment creates legal accountability, the employer’s liability hinges on whether a tangible job action occurred and on the existence of preventive measures. If the supervisor’s harassment leads to a tangible employment action (like firing, demotion, or a significant negative change in duties), the employer is strictly liable for that action. If no tangible action results, the employer isn’t automatically off the hook; it can still be held liable, but it gets a chance to avoid liability by proving a two-part defense: the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment, and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of available corrective avenues. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton clarified this approach by applying it to supervisor harassment in a hostile environment context and affirming that an employer can be liable, while outlining how the two-part defense works when there isn’t a tangible employment action. This reasoning builds on the same framework later echoed in Ellerth, and it distinguishes supervisor harassment from other forms of harassment recognized in cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.