October Term 2003 · Docket 03-95
Does an employer face strict liability for a supervisor's harassment that forces an employee to quit?
The dispute centers on whether an employer remains strictly liable when a supervisor's harassment causes an employee to resign rather than face a formal firing.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Bailey argued that employers are generally liable for the discriminatory acts of their supervisors.
Mr. Bailey asked if a constructive discharge is the equivalent of a formal discharge.
Mr. Gornstein argued that strict liability applies only when a constructive discharge results from an official company act.
Mr. Gornstein cited demotions as examples of official company acts that trigger strict liability.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the scope of employer liability under Title VII. It asks if a supervisor's discriminatory acts that force an employee to quit trigger the same strict liability as a formal termination.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to limit strict liability to official company acts like demotions.
the opposing side wants the Court to hold employers strictly liable for supervisor harassment that forces a resignation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues strict liability applies only when a constructive discharge results from an official company act.
the opposing side argues employers are strictly liable for discriminatory acts of their supervisors, including those causing a constructive discharge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-41
Why it matters
This case defines the financial and legal exposure of employers for supervisor misconduct. It determines whether a forced resignation carries the same legal weight as a formal firing. The outcome shapes workplace accountability standards nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 39-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.