Employment Discrimination
Answer the following questions 3-4 paragraphs per question
1. Read The Story of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton: Federal Common Lawmaking for the Modern Age, Chapter 7 of Employment Discrimination Stories. Summarize these rulings in a few sentences for each case.

2.Describe a specific point from one of the decisions which stands out for you, and why.

3. Did this text reading adequately convey these legal decisions, or do you prefer reading the court’s rulings?
Question 1
Burlington Industries, Inc V. Kimberly B. Ellerth
In this 1998 case, the US Supreme Court established that there was employer liability in regards to the sexual harassment claims. Kimberly Ellerth was an employee of Burlington Industries. Her supervisor at workplace has made several comments that would be regarded as being sexually explicit touching on her body parts. However, Kimberly failed to inform any persons of authority at Burlington Industries about the behavior of her supervisor. Since the harassment never stopped, Kimberly opted to quit her job and file a law suit against the company.
The decision in the district court sided with the employer by ruling that although there was a hostile environment, the employer was not aware about it. The court of appeal opted to vacate the ruling since consensus or a clear opinion about the case could not be reached. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to review this case. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that the employers are liable if their supervisor creates a working environment that would deemed as sexually hostile. Although Kimberly didn’t inform anyone in position of authority about the harassment, the Supreme Court ruled that employers should held able in situations where the plaintiff demonstrates the employers negligence in allowing the supervisors actions to take place.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
Beth Ann Faragher resigned from his work as a lifeguard and sued the city of City of Boca Raton alongside her supervisor claiming that the supervisor had created a very hostile environment at work by touching her and gives sexually harassment comments and remarks. Faragher argued that this behavior was discriminatory and violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court ruled that the supervisor’s actions were very serious and resulted in an abusive working environment and the city together with the supervisor could be held liable for these actions. The court of appeal reversed this ruling claiming that the supervisors actions was not within the scope of employment which means that the harassment charges could not be made against the city. Thus the city couldn’t be held liable for failing to prevent the supervisor’s actions.
Question 2
The specific point in both cases that stood out for me was in the case, Burlington Industries, Inc V. Kimberly B. Ellerth where the Supreme Court argued that the employers are liable if their supervisor creates a working environment that would deemed as sexually hostile. Although Kimberly didn’t inform anyone in position of authority about the harassment, the Supreme Court ruled that employers should held liable in situations where the plaintiff demonstrates the employers negligence in allowing the supervisors actions to take place.
In this judgment, it is quite clear that there was no way the employer would have known what Kimberly was going through under the hands of the supervisors unless she reported the matter to higher authorities within the company. However, the fact that no serious action was taken on the supervisor by the employer once this case too light means that the employer is very relaxed in such matters.
From the foregoing, I do agree with the Supreme Court ruling that the employer was liable for the actions taken by the supervisor. Given the fact that the supervisor is among the senior employees within the company, it means that they act of behalf of the company and thus the company would be liable for their actions.
Question 3
Unfortunately, I feel that this text reading hasn’t conveyed the legal decisions adequately and I found it more interesting to read the court’s decision. For instance, the text has failed to bring out clearly the relationship between the two cases but it comes out more clearly after reading the court decisions separately. As such, I would prefer reading each individual case from the court ruling as it is clearer instead of reading this text reading.
Despite these challenges, the text reading has managed to the legal decisions adequately by give a clearer explanation of how the different cases reasoned or gave their ruling and the relationship between these rulings. For instance, the district court ruled that the supervisor’s actions were very serious and resulted in an abusive working environment and the city together with the supervisor could be held liable for these actions. The court of appeal reversed this ruling claiming that the supervisors actions was not within the scope of employment which means that the harassment charges could not be made against the city. Making a connection between these two court ruling can sometimes be challenging when reading directly from the court decisions but this text reading has bridged this gap.
As such, we can conclude that court decisions directly and this text reading ahs its own benefits and limitations. As such, it would be advisable to read both of them as this will enhance the overall understanding of the two case studies.

References
FindLaw. (2019). FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/524/775.html.
Findlaw. (2019). FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and opinions. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/524/742.html.
Stainback, K. (2015). Organizations, Employment Discrimination, and Inequality. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.4