Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Faragher Vs. Boca Raton

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 25, 1998

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

74 entries 1 linked 73 unlinked
Show
  1. Burlington Industries, Inc. Vs. Ellerth US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1998
  2. Faragher v. Boca
    Search
  3. Raton - 524 U.S. 775 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Faragher V. City
    Search
  4. to report it to City officials. The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed. Relying on Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson
    Search
  5. the Court has delineated the substantive contours of the hostile environment Title VII forbids, see, e. g., Harris v. Forklift
    Search
  6. of their employers. Thus, the Court adopts the following holding in this case and in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
    Search
  7. banc, adopted the panel's conclusion. 111 F.3d 1530 (1997). Relying on our decision in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson
    Search
  8. as embodied in the Restatement, the Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches. Compare, e. g., Harrison v. Eddy
    Search
  9. and Karibian v. Columbia
    Search
  10. Harris v. Forklift
    Search
  11. Systems, Inc., 510 U. S. 17 , 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson
    Search
  12. Oncale v. Sundowner
    Search
  13. cases recognizing liability for discriminatory harassment based on race and national origin, see, e. g., Rogers v. EEOC
    Search
  14. Louis, 549 F.2d 506 (CA8), cert. denied sub nom. Banta v. United
    Search
  15. would not sufficiently alter terms and conditions of employment to violate Title VII).l See also Daniels v. Essex
    Search
  16. Davis v. Monsanto
    Search
  17. Snell v. Suffolk
    Search
  18. harassment cases have properly drawn on standards developed in cases involving racial harassment. See, e. g., Carrero v. New
    Search
  19. change in the terms and conditions of employment, and the Courts of Appeals have heeded this view. See, e. g., Carrero v. New
    Search
  20. Moylan v. Maries
    Search
  21. action by subordinates, which the employer or its informed officers have done nothing to stop. See, e. g., Katz v. Dole
    Search
  22. EEOC v. Hacienda
    Search
  23. Hall v. Gus
    Search
  24. within that class of an employer organization's officials who may be treated as the organization's proxy. Burns v. McGregor
    Search
  25. see Torres v. Pisano
    Search
  26. see also Anderson v. Methodist
    Search
  27. with the employer, and his act becomes that of the employer. See, e. g., Kotcher v. Rosa
    Search
  28. Steele v. Offshore
    Search
  29. of his authority when he makes discriminatory decisions in hiring, firing, promotion, and the like. See, e. g., Shager v. Upjohn
    Search
  30. because the supervisor who discriminates in this manner is aided by the agency relation. See, e. g., Nich ols v. Frank
    Search
  31. us has urged us to depart from our customary adherence to stare decisis in statutory interpretation, Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  32. see Keene Corp. v. United
    Search
  33. Andrade v. Mayfair
    Search
  34. Nichols v. Frank
    Search
  35. Bouton v. BMW
    Search
  36. see also Ellerth v. Burlington
    Search
  37. Industries, Inc., decided with Jansen v. Packaging
    Search
  38. But cf. Martin v. Cavalier
    Search
  39. Kauffman v. Allied
    Search
  40. torts that were in no sense inspired by any purpose to serve the employer. In Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United
    Search
  41. Id., at 171. Other examples of an expansive sense of scope of employment are readily found, see, e. g., Leonbruno v. Champlain
    Search
  42. Courts, in fact, have treated scope of employment generously enough to include sexual assaults. See, e. g., Primeaux v. United
    Search
  43. Mary M. v. Los
    Search
  44. Doe v. Samaritan
    Search
  45. Turner v. State
    Search
  46. Lyon v. Carey
    Search
  47. Samuels v. Southern
    Search
  48. Comment a. See generally Taber v. Maine
    Search
  49. have also implicitly treated such harassment as outside the scope of common employees' duties as well. See Blankenship v. Parke
    Search
  50. Fleming v. Boeing
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial