Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

E165279

United States Supreme Court case employment discrimination case sexual harassment case

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that defined employer liability standards for supervisor sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth canonical	3
Burlington v. Ellerth	1
Ellerth–Faragher affirmative defense	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1440438 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
Context triple: [Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, precedentFor, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth]

A. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is a U.S. federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, requiring pregnant workers to be treated the same as others similar in ability or inability to work.
B. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a U.S. federal law that restores and strengthens workers’ ability to challenge unequal pay by resetting the statute of limitations with each discriminatory paycheck.
C. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
D. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
E. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
Target entity description: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that defined employer liability standards for supervisor sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

A. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is a U.S. federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, requiring pregnant workers to be treated the same as others similar in ability or inability to work.
B. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a U.S. federal law that restores and strengthens workers’ ability to challenge unequal pay by resetting the statute of limitations with each discriminatory paycheck.
C. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
D. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
E. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (46)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ sexual harassment case ⓘ
appliesTo	employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ supervisor sexual harassment claims ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ labor and employment law ⓘ
citation	524 U.S. 742 ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1998-06-26 ⓘ
dissentBy	Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ linked to: Clarence Thomas
dissentJoinedBy	Justice Antonin Scalia ⓘ linked to: Antonin Scalia
docketNumber	97-569 ⓘ
fullName	Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth ⓘ
harassmentType	hostile work environment ⓘ quid pro quo sexual harassment ⓘ
holding	An employer is vicariously liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action against a subordinate employee. ⓘ The affirmative defense requires the employer to show reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities. ⓘ When no tangible employment action is taken, an employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages for a supervisor’s harassment. ⓘ
issue	Whether an employer is liable under Title VII for a supervisor’s sexual harassment when the employee suffered no tangible job detriment but was subjected to a hostile work environment. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ linked to: William H. Rehnquist Justice David H. Souter ⓘ linked to: David H. Souter Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ linked to: John Paul Stevens Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ linked to: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ linked to: Sandra Day O’Connor Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ linked to: Stephen G. Breyer
jurisdiction	United States federal law ⓘ
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalRule	Established a standard for employer vicarious liability for supervisor sexual harassment under Title VII. ⓘ Recognized an affirmative defense for employers in supervisor harassment cases without tangible employment action. ⓘ
legalSubject	Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ employer liability ⓘ employment discrimination law ⓘ sexual harassment law ⓘ vicarious liability ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy
originatingCourt	United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ⓘ
petitioner	Burlington Industries, Inc. ⓘ
relatedCase	Faragher v. City of Boca Raton ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	Ellerth–Faragher affirmative defense ⓘ linked to: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
respondent	Kimberly Ellerth ⓘ
result	Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was affirmed in part and reversed in part. ⓘ
shortName	Burlington v. Ellerth ⓘ linked to: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
statuteInterpreted	Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ
yearDecided	1998 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson → precedentFor → Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth ⓘ

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton → relatedCase → Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth ⓘ

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth → fullName → Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth ⓘ

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth → shortName → Burlington v. Ellerth ⓘ

linked to: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth → relatedDoctrine → Ellerth–Faragher affirmative defense ⓘ