# Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth > Supreme Court of the United States · June 26, 1998 · 524 U.S. 742 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433717 ## Case - **Full name:** Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 26, 1998 - **Citations:** 524 U.S. 742; 118 S. Ct. 2257; 141 L. Ed. 2d 633; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4217 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ginsburg - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Thomas, Scalia - **Cited by:** 4,578 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Williams v. Missouri Department of Mental Health, 407 F.3d 972 (2005). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 1 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433717 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that when there has not been a tangible employment action, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages "comprise[d] [of] two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexual… - holding that an adverse employment action “constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,” but a “demotion wi… - stating that ―[t]he terms quid pro quo and hostile work environment are helpful, perhaps, in making a rough demarcation between cases in which threats are carried out and those where they are not or are absent altogether, but beyond this are of limited utility‖ and that the fa… - holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when “the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and … the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantag… - explaining that "[a] tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote," and comparing this to the holdings in a string of federal cases that stand for the proposition that, in disparate treatment cases… ## Opinion text Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court’s ruling that “the labels quid pro quo and hostile work environment are not controlling for purposes of establishing employer liability.” Ante, at 765. I also subscribe to the Court’s statement of the rule governing employer liability, ibid., which is substantively identical to the rule the Court adopts in Faragher v. Boca Raton, post, p. 775. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433717. Public record. Not legal advice.