{"id":1131,"date":"2020-03-23T17:03:01","date_gmt":"2020-03-23T21:03:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/?p=1131"},"modified":"2020-03-28T16:37:45","modified_gmt":"2020-03-28T20:37:45","slug":"two-very-different-stories-vicarious-liability-under-tort-and-title-vii-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/chapters\/chapter-4\/two-very-different-stories-vicarious-liability-under-tort-and-title-vii-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Martha Chamallas, Two Very Different Stories: Vicarious Liability Under Tort and Title VII Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Martha Chamallas, Two Very Different Stories: Vicarious Liability Under Tort and Title VII Law<\/a><\/p>\n

“This Article takes issue with both the Court\u2019s importation of tort and agency principles and its reluctance to hold employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts of employees. With respect to the Court\u2019s decision to borrow agency principles, I argue in Part II that such a move was not required by the statutory language of Title VII and should not be understood as furthering congressional intent.5 Part III then turns to the case law and tracks the Supreme Court\u2019s importation of agency principles and the gradual erosion of vicarious liability in key decisions governing employer liability in the sexual harassment context.6 Beyond the questionable move to rely on private law to determine the scope of Title VII liability, I show how the Court\u2019s uptake of tort and agency principles has been selective and misguided, leading the Court to reach results that were neither inevitable nor desirable as a matter of policy.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Martha Chamallas, Two Very Different Stories: Vicarious Liability Under Tort and Title VII Law “This Article takes issue with both the Court\u2019s importation of tort and agency principles and its reluctance to hold employers vicariously liable for discriminatory acts of employees. With respect to the Court\u2019s decision to borrow agency principles, I argue in Part … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Martha Chamallas, Two Very Different Stories: Vicarious Liability Under Tort and Title VII Law”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3337,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[141,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scholarship","category-chapter-4"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3337"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1131"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1131\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1143,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1131\/revisions\/1143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/sexualharassmentlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}