Courts interpreting Title VII

The majority of courts interpreting Title VII find that the statute does not authorize victims of sexual harassment to recover damages from a supervisor or other employer agent who actually perpetrates the sexual harassment. In contrast, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act expressly authorizes personal liability against employee (supervisor or coworker) harassers for sexual harassment.

2. Under Title VII, there is no personal liability for sex discrimination (not including harassment claims).

3. The Supreme Court has held that the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense is available in some cases even where a supervisor’s misconduct warranted the plaintiff’s resignation and thus constituted a constructive discharge.

4. A predictive stereotype would be “women should not conduct themselves in an aggressive manner” whereas a normative stereotype is “women are not likely to be sufficiently aggressive.

5.  Courts prior to Bostock held that gay employees are protected against harassment on the basis of sex, where the harassment is motivated by non-conformity with gender stereotypes.