Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
GPTKB entity
Statements (60)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:area |
employment law
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
97-569
Ellerth claimed she was sexually harassed by her supervisor. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
7-2 decision.
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ellerth. led to changes in workplace policies. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
important for understanding employer liability.
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
civil case
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 26, 1998
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
|
| gptkbp:impact |
influenced workplace harassment policies
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Burlington_Industries,_Inc.
gptkb:Kimberly_Ellerth |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
524 U. S. 742
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Title_VII_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
whether an employer is liable for sexual harassment.
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
employer liability established
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
hostile work environment
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
employee rights.
affirmative defense. quid pro quo harassment. retaliation. supervisor liability. |
| gptkbp:material |
the ruling affected future sexual harassment cases.
Burlington Industries denied the allegations. Ellerth alleged harassment by her supervisor. Ellerth did not report the harassment. Ellerth filed a lawsuit after leaving the company. Ellerth was employed by Burlington Industries. the case raised questions about employer responsibility. the case clarified the standards for employer liability. the case is significant in discussions of workplace culture. the case is relevant to discussions of gender equality. the case involved a claim of sexual harassment. the case involved issues of consent. the case is often cited in legal discussions. the case is often referenced in legal precedents. the case is referenced in legal textbooks. the case is studied in law schools. the case was a landmark decision. the case was heard in federal court. the case was significant in employment law. the case highlighted the importance of reporting harassment. the case was pivotal in shaping workplace policies. the case emphasized the need for employer training. the case is a key reference in employment discrimination law. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
employer can be held liable for harassment by a supervisor
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Faragher_v._City_of_Boca_Raton
set precedent for future sexual harassment cases |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Meritor_Savings_Bank_v._Vinson
|
| gptkbp:significance |
established standards for employer liability in sexual harassment cases
clarified employer defenses in harassment claims |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:The_Civil_Rights_Act
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|