The U.S. Supreme Court case Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly B. Ellerth (1997) addressed the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and employer liability for such actions by supervisors under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff, Kimberly Ellerth, alleged that her supervisor at Burlington Industries had created a hostile work environment through unwelcome sexual comments and advances despite no tangible employment action taken against her like firing or demotion due to refusal to submit to these advances. The court ruled in favor of Ellerth stating that an employer is liable for actionable sexual harassment caused by a supervisor but also established an affirmative defense if they can prove they took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Kimberly B. Ellerth, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, argued that an employer should not be held liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment unless it had actual knowledge of the misconduct and failed to take immediate corrective action. They contended that this standard was consistent with Title VII’s purpose of preventing discrimination in employment and its requirement that plaintiffs prove they suffered some injury as a result of actionable conduct. The majority's decision to hold employers vicariously liable even when they were unaware of any wrongdoing would lead to unjust results and could potentially undermine Title VII’s goal by discouraging proactive measures against workplace harassment.