CASE BRIEF

 Style of Case and Citation:

Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)

 Court Rendering Final Decision:

U.S. Supreme Court

 Identification of Parties and Procedural Details:

Kimberly Ellerth (plaintiff) sued Burlington Industries, Inc (defendant) stating that sexual harassment was the cause of her forced discharge. The District Court determined that Mr. Slowik’s behavior created a hostile environment. The courts also found that Burlington Industries did not know and isn’t expected to know about the hostile working environment Mr. Slowik had created. Burlington appealed.

 Discussion of the Facts: Who did what to whom? What relief is being sought?

Kimberly Ellerth had been constantly sexually harassed by her supervisor Mr. Slowik. Mr. Slowik had the authority to hire, promote or terminate employment. Mr. Slowik made boorish and very offensive remarks to Kimberly. Kimberly filed suit against Burlington for violating Title VII being that sexual harassment lead to her forced resignation.

 Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute: What decision of the lower court is being challenged? What specific legal questions is the subject court being asked to address? Is the question about Common-Law? A Statute?

Burlington is challenging the court’s decision that their employee Mr. Slowik had in fact created a hostile work environment even though they acknowledged that Burlington didn’t know or was required to know about his conduct. It was felt that Kimberly’s claims were just unfulfilled threats and should be classified as a hostile work environment claim with proof of severe or pervasive conduct.

 Subject Court Final Decision: For Plaintiff? For Defendant? What happens next?

For plaintiff Kimberly Ellerth because the courts found that Burlington’s employee Mr. Slowik did in fact