Asked by Steven Martinez on Mar 10, 2024

verifed

Verified

The text discussed the case of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, where the U.S. Supreme Court addressed workplace harassment and defined two ways an employer may be liable for torts of its employees while acting outside the scope of employment. Which of the following is one of those ways?

A) The employer knew or should have known of the employee's harm and failed to stop it.
B) The employer outsourced its human resources overseas and failed to follow traditional U.S. human resources procedures.
C) The employer failed to conduct a semi-annual training on appropriate workplace behavior.
D) The employer failed to monitor its employees.
E) The employer had bad hiring practices.

Workplace Harassment

Unwelcome conduct in a professional environment that can lead to a hostile work atmosphere or affect an employee's job performance.

Outside the Scope

Referring to matters that fall beyond the range of authority, interest, or area of consideration designated for a particular discussion, activity, or project.

  • Discern the key components of vicarious liability, especially the conditions that could render an employer accountable for their employee's actions.
verifed

Verified Answer

FA
fredrionna adams

Mar 10, 2024

Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for the torts of its employees acting outside the scope of their employment if the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate action to stop it. This principle is part of establishing employer liability in cases of workplace harassment.