Harassment liability turns on three questions: was the environment hostile, who was the harasser, and did the employer act. Five cases answer them.
Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)
A dual objective and subjective standard: the environment must be one a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and that the victim actually perceives that way. No psychological injury is required - that was the Sixth Circuit requirement the Court rejected. Severity or pervasiveness still matters, and the harasser's rank is a later question.
Faragher and Ellerth (1998)
Employers are vicariously liable for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Where no tangible employment action was taken, the employer may raise a two-part affirmative defense:
- it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment, and
- the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities or otherwise avoid harm.
A policy alone is not enough; it must be enforced. Economic loss is not part of the defense.
Vance v. Ball State University (2013)
An employee is a supervisor for vicarious-liability purposes only if empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions - hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a significant change in benefits. The 5-4 majority rejected the broader EEOC directs-daily-work test. Title and seniority are not authority.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006)
The anti-retaliation provision extends beyond workplace-related or employment-related acts and harm. The plaintiff must show an action a reasonable employee would find materially adverse - it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Broader than the substantive discrimination standard, and no malice required.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
No. 23-1039, argued February 26, 2025, decided June 5, 2025. Justice Jackson wrote for a unanimous Court; the Sixth Circuit judgment at 87 F.4th 822 was vacated and remanded - vacated, not affirmed.
What the judgment item rewards
A team lead who can only recommend is not a Vance supervisor, but that affects the liability theory, not the duty to act. Promptly investigate and correct under the anti-harassment policy, documenting the reasonable care exercised and the channels made available. Moving the complainant can itself be materially adverse under Burlington Northern, and pushing her back toward the alleged harasser is never the answer.