In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace when an employee claimed she was subject to sexual harassment by her supervisor, but never reported the matter to superiors, the Supreme Court held that:
A) if it was quid pro quo harassment, not hostile work environment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is proven
B) if it was hostile work environment, not quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is proven
C) if it was either hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is proven
D) it does not matter whether it was hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, the firm is likely to be vicariously liable if it did not have an effective anti-harassment policy
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q324: To reduce the likelihood of discrimination cases,
Q325: In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America,
Q326: In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and in
Q327: In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the
Q328: If an employer uses a decision rule
Q330: In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America,
Q331: In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America,
Q332: In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the
Q333: In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and in
Q334: If, at a trial for employment discrimination,
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents