ÿWPC8 k·G+º›ç¿´bÅÑ!òÔé"÷KB æó²PvxÄ_ær×nV£xb±åu|¼_#A5li è$=Á qž|‚ 1ÊÚ­¹]ýH{h>=ê(ˆö m> %¯#žÚг(AB1(ÞÀiè£JîûrÈ=mq˜7üG?'=äÝ©Â-ÉøÉZ¯.)Â@¢VGÈ̯)„%cö.5å’‚ó®t}” ŒHbúœkayÏ:W+ϾWiÏÁW¶Œ· Ò›itÒ/aS>¬ê'ü•­BÍeòFðŒ‡WSoîÚ¹²Û‰27õü·›gɱ¯× ÇTeªïìLùÂ#@0éÉéÇ£ÈÂŒm³(~£_šˆ1nâ¤QÁm\NÔ©Ëü‚påëë…”˜òÁà×& !?+ÌÈö'Øq&ñ5Ÿ5tE†’ZRV —«=)0ÔêÝðà#&ärõ¶Å™¬–Çó)™š':‘2»m–ΰͦÊt)f–Ú'ØB¢(UŒúíœJÆy‚k)˜G8CÔù€\¨XïTÛlßS08±¬¬«"5‰ðo{£ŽlKË«-8Ĺ•½õ%£…÷ Õ­Ís’̤¯8þG„<âQù[>–e5Y4S€½³d#!xU:™ %Ó 0ˆÙwa 4e y 0&ˆ U :® è 0cð $S Nw°y^ )5]7UN”U:â mb3U:•••••••U:ÏÏ B       U:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0¤` D5 AQ9ÆŠ 0¤P 0Dô˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(`zZ$¡¡ÑTRY,3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø'ÿ Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  Ô{Z='ÔüÔô3|x(Ö(2<$¤¤Ý ƒzZ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'Xo’XXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€'ôdˆõX'Xo’Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular("«ª$Ô€X/«XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒI™$ÝÔ  ÔÔ€'XsXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€'ôÉòX'XsÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Restatement€of€Agency€ðð€219(2)€provides:Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àA€master€is€not€subject€to€liability€for€the€torts€of€his€servants€acting€outside€theÐ „| Ðscope€of€their€employment,€unless:ÐB :Œ ü!Œ ü! Ðà Œ àà8 ä à(a)€€the€master€intended€the€conduct€of€the€consequences,€orÐ øä ¤ä ¤ Ðà Œ àà8 ä à(b)€€the€master€was€negligent€or€reckless,€orо ¶ä ¤ä ¤ Ðà8 Œ àà ä à(c)€€the€conduct€violated€a€non„delegable€duty€of€the€master,€orÐ| tŒ ü!Œ ü! Ðà Œ àà8 ä à(d)€€the€servant€purported€to€act€or€to€speak€on€behalf€of€theÐ : 2 Ðprincipal€and€there€was€reliance€upon€the€apparent€authority,€orÐ ø ð Ðhe€was€aided€in€accomplishing€the€tort€by€the€existence€of€theÐ ¶ ®  Ðagency€relationship. ¦Ý ƒI™$ÝÔ  ÔÔ€'XsXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€'ôÉòX'XsÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUnder€Title€VII€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964,€ð ðit€shall€be€an€unlawful€employmentÐ  Ðpractice€for€an€employer€.€.€.€to€fail€or€refuse€to€hire€or€to€discharge€any€individual,€or€otherwise€toРƾ  Ðdiscriminate€against€any€individual€with€respect€to€his€compensation,€terms,€conditions,€orÐ  Ðprivileges€of€employment,€because€of€such€individualððs€race,€color,€religion,€sex,€or€nationalРƾ Ðorigin.ðð€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000e„2(a)(1).“%'  SÝ ƒI™$ÝÔ  ÔÔ€'XsXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€'ôÉòX'XsÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€is€a€discriminatory€practice€under€the€THRA€for€an€employer€to€"[f]ail€or€refuse€to€hire€orÐ  Ðdischarge€any€person€or€otherwise€to€discriminate€against€an€individual€with€respect€toРƾ Ðcompensation,€terms,€conditions€or€privileges€of€employment€because€of€such€individual's€race,Ð „| Ðcreed,€color,€religion,€sex,€age€or€national€origin."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„401(a).(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,kû¤AZ‹"Arial RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ XÝ ƒb]"ÝÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Xo’XXXÔÔ€ªXXo’ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€Xo’XªÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€Ô_Ô7,Ô_Ô€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA„Ôó ó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(|3]$££Ý ƒzZ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3]$¢¢Ý ƒzZ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒzZ!ÝÑTRXà3Ø'ÿ Letter3Ø'3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ԚѰÑÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ"*US ú\ú\ú (ú:!ú&ú)*ÔÔ€Xo’XXXÔÑ8€ o’ XXdædÈ8Ñò òÑTR[° AØ'Legal ManualXà3Ø'ÿ Letter AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' LetterTÑÔ_Ôßv€`[@0,j:`  `€€@ÿEô ` 8ttxP,ð  vßÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@PPDàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@rr)DàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àò òFiled:ó ó€òò€€€€€September€7,€1999à€T$T$MT$àóóˆÐ ,$  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÓ*4„†X‚Âô’X°œX*ÓDEMETRA€LYREE€PARKER,à  àà Ú à)Ð –Ž Ѐà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú à)Ð |t Ðà Œ àPLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,à  àà Ú à)à œ àWARREN€COUNTY€CHANCERY€Ð bZ Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú à)Ìv.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú à)à œ àHon.€John€W.€Rollins,€JudgeÐ .& Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú à)ÌWARREN€COUNTY€UTILITY€DISTRICT,à Ú à)à œ àNo.€01S01„9806„CH„00107Ð úò Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú à)Ìà Œ àDEFENDANT/APPELLANT.à  àà Ú à)Рƾ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTóó:à < àà ” àà  àà Ú àà œ àòòFOR€APPELLEEóó:Ð $  ÐÌLISA€M.€CARSONà < àà ” àà  àà Ú àà œ àROBERT€S.€PETERSÐ Ü%Ô" ÐFranklinà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú àà œ àWinchesterÐ Â&º# ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@oo)Dàò òÔ‡è±÷çXXo’ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#†Xo’Xçè±÷ª #ԈР¤0œ). ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDà ô àà L àà ¤ àHOLDER,€J.Ð  t8l16 ÐÓÓà Œ àÔ‡ Xo’XXXo’Ôà@,Dàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ  ÐÌà Œ àWe€granted€review€to€address€the€standard€for€an€employer's€liability€inÐ È À Ðsupervisor€sexual€harassment€cases€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€ActÐ ¨   Ðfollowing€the€recent€United€States€Supreme€Court's€decisions€in€òòBurlingtonÐ ˆ€ ÐIndus.€Inc.€v.€Ellerthóó,€118€S.Ct.€2257€(1998),€and€òòFaragher€v.€City€of€Boca€Ratonóó,Ð h`  Ð118€S.Ct.€2275€(1998).Ô#†XsXX X¥G #ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€€Upon€review,€we€adopt€a€standard€consistent€with€òòEllerthóóÐ H@  Ðand€òòFaragheróó€and€hold€that€an€employer€is€vicariously€liable€for€sexualÐ (  Ðharassment€by€a€supervisor.€€An€employer,€however,€may€raise€an€affirmativeÐ  Ðdefense€to€liability€or€damages€when€no€tangible€employment€action€has€beenÐ èà Ðtaken.€€The€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed€as€modified.Ð ÈÀ ÐÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓFACTSó óÔ#†XsXX X¥l#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔÐ ˆ€ ÐÓkÓÌà Œ àÔ#†XsXX X¥¢#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔDavid€Grissom€worked€as€the€general€manager€for€the€defendant,€WarrenÐ H!@ ÐCounty€Utility€District€("Utility€District").€€In€1988,€Grissom€hired€the€plaintiff,Ð (#  ÐDemetra€Lyree€Parker,€to€work€as€a€bookkeeper€for€the€Utility€District.€€In€1991€orÐ %  Ð1992,€the€plaintiff€notified€her€immediate€supervisor,€Pam€Link,€that€Grissom€wasÐ è&à" Ðsexually€harassing€her.€€She€alleged€that€Grissomððs€actions€included€touchingÐ È(À!$ Ðher€breast,€attempting€to€kiss€her,€rubbing€his€body€against€hers,€rubbing€herÐ ¨* #& Ðlegs€and€shoulders,€commenting€on€the€way€her€clothes€fit€her€body,€andÐ ˆ,€%( Ðwhispering€sexual€remarks€into€her€ear.€€Grissom€further€allegedly€informed€theÐ h.`'* Ðplaintiff€that€"the€solution€to€her€problem€was€him"€and€that€he€"was€a€man"€andÐ H0@), Ðð ðcould€take€care€of€[her]."Ð (2 +. ÐÌà Œ àLink€apparently€believed€the€plaintiff's€allegations€based€on€her€ownÐ è5à.2 Ðexperiences€with€Grissom.€€Moreover,€Grissom's€alleged€sexual€harassment€ofÐ È7À04 Ðthe€plaintiff€was€commonly€discussed€among€the€female€employees€in€Link'sÐ ¨9 26 Ðoffice.€€Link€asked€the€plaintiff€what€she€wanted€to€do€concerning€the€sexualÐ  Ðharassment.€€The€plaintiff€informed€Link€that€she€feared€she€would€lose€her€job€ifÐ èà Ðshe€did€anything.€€She,€therefore,€requested€that€Link€do€nothing.€€LinkÐ È À Ðsuggested€to€the€plaintiff€that€she€try€to€avoid€Grissom€and€not€dress€in€a€mannerÐ ¨   Ðthat€might€cause€him€to€sexually€harass€her.Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà Œ àLink€did€not€initiate€a€formal€complaint€against€Grissom€on€the€plaintiff'sÐ H@  Ðbehalf.€€Link's€testimony€indicates€that€she€thought€the€Utility€District€had€aÐ (  Ðgrievance€procedure.€€She,€however,€stated€that€to€her€knowledge€the€procedureÐ  Ðwas€never€explained€either€to€her€or€to€any€of€the€Utility€District's€employees.€Ð èà ÐGrissom€testified€that€the€Utility€District€did€not€have€a€sexual€harassment€policyÐ ÈÀ Ðwhen€the€alleged€incidents€of€sexual€harassment€occurred.€€Grissom€testifiedÐ ¨  Ðthat€the€Utility€District€did€not€adopt€a€sexual€harassment€policy€until€October€ofÐ ˆ€ Ð1994.Ð h` ÐÌ€à Œ àThe€plaintiff€continued€to€convey€to€Link€complaints€of€sexual€harassmentÐ (#  Ðby€Grissom€that€the€plaintiff€alleged€occurred€on€almost€a€daily€basis.€€LinkÐ %  Ðdiscussed€the€plaintiff's€allegations€with€Phillip€Vinson,€a€member€of€the€UtilityÐ è&à" ÐDistrict's€Board€of€Commissioners.€€Link€informed€Vinson€that€the€plaintiff€did€notÐ È(À!$ Ð"want€anything€done€about€[the€harassment]€because€she's€afraid€she'll€lose€herÐ ¨* #& Ðjob."€€According€to€Link,€Vinson€agreed€that€the€plaintiff€would€probably€lose€herÐ ˆ,€%( Ðjob€if€she€pursued€the€allegations€of€sexual€harassment.Ð h.`'* ÐÌà Œ àLink€spoke€with€Grissom€about€his€treatment€of€the€plaintiff.€€GrissomÐ (2 +. Ðallegedly€responded€that€the€plaintiff€had€"done€everything€but€lay€[sic]€down€onÐ 4-0 Ðthe€floor€and€take€her€clothes€off€in€front€of€[him]."€€Link€felt€that€additionalÐ è5à.2 Ðconversation€with€Grissom€concerning€this€matter€would€have€been€unproductiveÐ È7À04 Ðso€she€did€not€pursue€the€matter€further.Ð ¨9 26 Їà Œ àIn€1992€or€1993,€the€plaintiff€discussed€the€alleged€sexual€harassmentÐ  Ðwith€Vinson.€€The€plaintiff€apparently€conveyed€to€Vinson€that€she€wasÐ èà Ðconcerned€she€would€lose€her€job€if€she€pursued€the€matter.€€Vinson€did€notÐ È À Ðassure€the€plaintiff€that€she€would€not€lose€her€job.€€Vinson€also€replied€that€heÐ ¨   Ðrepresented€only€one€vote€on€the€Board€and€that€he€did€not€know€how€the€otherÐ ˆ€ Ðfour€commissioners€would€vote.€€The€plaintiff€asked€Vinson€not€"to€go€to€theÐ h`  ÐBoard€with€it€because€she€felt€that€she€would€[lose]€her€job."€€Vinson€did€adviseÐ H@  Ðthe€plaintiff€that€she€could€pursue€the€matter€legally€if€she€felt€"like€[she€had]€aÐ (  Ðharassment€case."€€Vinson€neither€discussed€the€matter€with€Grissom€norÐ  Ðreported€the€plaintiff's€allegation€to€other€members€of€the€Utility€District's€Board.Ð èà ÐÌà Œ àGrissom€allegedly€continued€to€sexually€harass€the€plaintiff€until€GrissomÐ ¨  Ðvoluntarily€resigned€in€April€of€1994.€€In€the€fall€of€1994,€the€Board€wasÐ ˆ€ Ðconsidering€rehiring€Grissom€as€the€Utility€District's€general€manager.€€TheÐ h` Ðplaintiff€then€notified€the€entire€Board€that€Grissom€had€subjected€her€to€sexualÐ H!@ Ðharassment€and€unwelcome€sexual€advances.€€The€Board€still€voted€to€rehireÐ (#  ÐGrissom,€but€the€Board€retained€outside€counsel€to€conduct€an€independentÐ %  Ðinvestigation€into€the€plaintiff's€allegations€of€sexual€harassment.€€Plaintiff€doesÐ è&à" Ðnot€allege€that€Grissom€sexually€harassed€her€after€he€was€rehired.€€The€Board,Ð È(À!$ Ðhowever,€suspended€Grissom€without€pay€as€a€result€of€the€independentÐ ¨* #& Ðinvestigation€into€the€allegations€of€sexual€harassment.Ð ˆ,€%( ÐÌà Œ àIn€October€of€1994,€the€plaintiff€filed€this€action€against€Grissom,€the€UtilityÐ H0@), ÐDistrict,€and€two€of€its€commissioners,€Bobby€Mayfield€and€Harrison€Gant.€€TheÐ (2 +. Ðplaintiff€asserted€claims€under€both€Title€VII€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964,€42Ð 4-0 ÐU.S.C€ðð€2002e€òòetóó€òòseq.óó,׃×Ý ƒ «ªÝÔ€XsXX X¥ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XsXXXs#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€and€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€("THRA"),׃ˆ×Ý ƒ «ªÝÔ€XsXX X¥ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ è5à.2 Ðasserted€common€law€claims€for€negligent€and€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÐ  Ðdistress.€€The€plaintiff€voluntarily€dismissed€without€prejudice€the€claims€againstÐ ÔÌ ÐBobby€Mayfield€and€Harrison€Gant€and€her€claim€under€Title€VII.€€The€trial€courtÐ   ˜ Ðsubsequently€entered€an€agreed€order€dismissing€with€prejudice€the€plaintiff'sÐ l d Ðaction€against€Grissom€individually.Ð 80 ÐÌà Œ àThe€plaintiff's€claim€before€this€Court€is€a€claim€under€the€THRA€againstÐ ÐÈ  Ðthe€Utility€District.€€The€Utility€District€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgmentÐ œ”  Ðalleging€that€it€took€prompt€corrective€action€in€response€to€plaintiff's€complaintsÐ h` Ðand€that€the€corrective€action€was€"a€complete€defense"€to€a€claim€for€sexualÐ 4, Ðharassment.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€for€summaryÐ ø Ðjudgment.€€The€Court€held€that€the€Utility€Board€took€"immediate€steps"€toÐ ÌÄ Ð"terminate€the€harassment"€once€"it€received€notice"€of€the€harassment.€€TheÐ ˜ ÐCourt€of€Appeals€reversed€and€held€that€"a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€existedÐ d\ Ðas€to€whether€the€Utility€District€responded€promptly,€adequately,€and€effectivelyÐ 0 ( Ðto€the€plaintiff's€informal€complaints€of€sexual€harassment."€€We€granted€theÐ ü!ô Ðdefendant's€appeal.Ð È#À  ÐÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÐ `'X $ ÐÓ¦/ÓÌà Œ àThis€Court€established€a€framework€for€analyzing€sexual€harassmentÐ +ü#( Ðcases€under€the€THRA€in€òòCarr€v.€United€Parcel€Serv.óó,€955€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.Ð Ð,È%* Ð1997).€€In€òòCarróó,€we€recognized€that€our€legislature€had€intended€the€THRA€"to€beÐ œ.”', Ðcoextensive€with€federal€law."€€òòId.óó€at€834„35€òòcitingóó€òòBennett€v.€Steiner„Liff€Iron€&Ð h0`). ÐMetal€Co.óó,€826€S.W.2d€119,€121€(Tenn.€1992);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  Ððð4-21-101(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.)€(stating€purpose€and€intent€of€general€assemblyÐ ÔÌ Ðwas€to€"provide€for€execution€of€the€policies€embodied€in€the€federal€Civil€RightsÐ   ˜ ÐActs€of€1964,€1968€and€1972,€.€.€.").€€We,€however,€are€neither€bound€by€norÐ l d Ðlimited€by€the€federal€law€when€interpreting€our€state's€anti„discrimination€statute.€Ð 80 ÐòòId.óó€at€835.€€The€policy€of€interpreting€the€THRA€coextensively€with€Title€VII€isÐ ü  Ðpredicated€upon€a€desire€to€maintain€continuity€between€state€and€federal€law.Ð ÐÈ  ÐÌà Œ àSince€our€decision€in€òòCarróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€modifiedÐ h` Ðthe€federal€analysis€for€imposition€of€employer€liability€in€cases€involvingÐ 4, Ðsupervisor€sexual€harassment.€€We€shall€begin€by€discussing€our€decision€inÐ ø ÐòòCarróó.€€Next€we€shall€briefly€examine€the€recent€Supreme€Court€decisionsÐ ÌÄ Ðarticulating€a€standard€for€imposition€of€employer€liability€in€cases€involvingÐ ˜ Ðsupervisor€sexual€harassment.€€Finally,€we€shall€examine€the€differencesÐ d\ Ðbetween€òòCarróó€and€the€current€federal€law€and€address€the€facts€of€this€case.Ð 0 ( ÐÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓSUPERVISOR€HARASSMENTó óÐ È#À  ÐÓ7ÓÌà Œ àIn€òòCarróó,€this€Court€adopted€the€federal€courts'€generalÔ#†XsXXXsâ(#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€analysis€andÐ l'd $ Ðdelineated€two€general€classes€of€supervisor€harassment,€quid€pro€quo€andÐ P)H"& Ðsupervisor„created€hostile€work€environment.€€In€establishing€the€framework€forÐ 0+($( Ðanalyzing€a€quid€pro€quo€case,€this€Court€utilized€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÐ -&* ÐAppeal's€test€set€forth€in€òòKauffman€v.€Allied€Signal,€Inc.óó,€970€F.2d€178,€186€(6thÐ ð.è', ÐCir.€1992).€€We€held€that€under€a€quid€pro€quo€theory€of€sexual€harassment,€aÐ Ð0È). Ðplaintiff€must€establish:Ð °2¨+0 ÐÌÓÓà8 Œ à(1)€that€the€employee€was€a€member€of€a€protected€class;€(2)€thatÐ p6h/4 Ðthe€employee€was€subjected€to€unwelcome€sexual€harassment€inÐ `7X05 Ðthe€form€of€sexual€advances€or€requests€for€sexual€favors;€(3)€thatÐ P8H16 Ðthe€harassment€complained€of€was€based€on€sex;€(4)€that€theÐ @9827 Ðemployee's€submission€to€the€unwelcome€advances€was€anÐ 0:(38 Ðexpress€or€implied€condition€for€receiving€job€benefits€or€that€theÐ  Ðemployee's€refusal€to€submit€to€the€supervisor's€demands€resultedÐ øð Ðin€a€tangible€job€detriment;€and€(5)€the€existence€of€respondeatÐ èà Ðsuperior€liability.Ó*:ÓÐØ ÐŒ ü!Œ ü! ÐÌòòId.óó€at€837€òòcitingóó€òòKauffman€v.€Allied€Signal,€Inc.óó,€970€F.2d€at€186.€€Under€the€òòCarróóÐ ˜  Ðanalysis,Ô#†XsXX X¥Ç7#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€an€employer€was€strictly€liable€for€quid€pro€quo€sexual€harassment.€Ð xp  ÐThe€theory€of€strict€liability€was€imposed€under€the€doctrine€of€respondeatÐ XP  Ðsuperior€and€predicated€upon€the€theory€that:€€(1)€a€supervisor€is€the€alter€ego€ofÐ 80  Ðthe€employer;€and€(2)€a€supervisor€has€the€actual€or€apparent€authority€to€alterÐ  Ðan€employee's€terms€or€conditions€of€employment.€€òòId.óó€at€837;€òòseeóó€òògenerallyóóÐ øð ÐRestatement€of€Agency€ðð€219(1)€("A€master€is€subject€to€liability€for€the€torts€ofÐ ØÐ Ðhis€servants€committed€while€acting€in€the€scope€of€their€employment.").Ð ¸° ÐÌà Œ àUnlike€quid€pro€quo€harassment,€supervisorsÔ#†XsXX X¥Ú=#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€in€supervisor„created€hostileÐ xp Ðwork€environment€cases€do€not€make€job€benefits€contingent€upon€the€receipt€ofÐ X P Ðsexual€favors.€€òòCarróó,€955€S.W.2d€at€838.€€Ô#†XsXX X¥A#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔThe€supervisor€instead€creates€aÐ 8"0 Ðhostile€work€environment.€€The€òòCarróó€analysis€for€imposing€employer€liability€forÐ $ Ðsupervisor€hostile€work€environment€cases€asked:€€"(1)€whether€the€supervisor'sÐ ø%ð! Ðharassing€actions€were€foreseeable€or€fell€within€the€scope€of€employment;€andÐ Ø'Ð # Ð(2)€even€if€they€were,€whether€the€employer€responded€adequately€andÐ ¸)°"% Ðeffectively€to€negate€liability."€€òòId.óó€at€838€òòquotingóó€òòPierce€v.€Commonwealth€LifeÐ ˜+$' ÐIns.€Co.óó,€40€F.3d€796,€803€(6th€Cir.€1994).€€Accordingly,€the€employer's€liability€inÐ x-p&) Ða€hostile€work€environment€case€was€predicated€upon€its€reaction€to€theÐ X/P(+ Ðsupervisor's€discriminatory€conduct€and€not€upon€a€theory€of€respondeat€superiorÐ 810*- Ðliability.€€òòId.óóÐ 3,/ Ðâ âÐ ø4ð-1 ÐÔ  Ôâ âò òÓ  ÓòòÓÓBURLINGTON€INDUSTRIES,€INC.€V.€ELLERTHóóÐ  ÐANDÐ øð ÐòòFARAGHER€V.€CITY€OF€BOCA€RATONó óóóÐ èà ÐÓÿEÓÌÓÓÌà Œ àSince€our€decision€in€òòCarróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€revisitedÐ ¨   Ðthe€area€of€employer€liability€for€supervisor€sexual€harassment.€€In€òòBurlingtonÐ ˆ€ ÐIndus.€Inc.€v.€Ellerthóó,€118€S.Ct.€2257€(1998),€and€òòFaragher€v.€City€of€Boca€Ratonóó,Ð h`  Ð118€S.Ct.€2275€(1998),€the€Supreme€Court€enunciated€a€standard€for€imposingÐ H@  Ðemployer€liability.€€Prior€to€these€decisions,€the€Supreme€Court€had€not€clearlyÐ (  Ðdelineated€a€standard€for€imposing€employer€liability€for€supervisor€sexualÐ  Ðharassment€under€Title€VII.€€The€Court€had€previously€acknowledged€in€òòMeritorÐ èà ÐSavings€Bank,€FSB€v.€Vinsonóó,€477€U.S.€57€(1986),€that€hostile€work€environmentÐ ÈÀ Ðand€quid€pro€quo€harassment€constituted€violations€of€Title€VII.€€In€òòMeritoróó,Ð ¨  Ðhowever,€the€Court€did€not€articulate€a€precise€standard€for€imposing€employerÐ ˆ€ Ðliability€but€did€suggest€that€lower€courts€should€look€to€agency€principles€whenÐ h` Ðdefining€liability€for€supervisor€sexual€harassment.Ð H!@ ÐÌÔ  ÔòòÓ  ÓFaragher€v.€City€of€Boca€RatonóóÐ %  ÐÓ–KÓÌà Œ àIn€òòFaragheróó,€the€plaintiff€worked€part„time€as€a€lifeguard€for€the€defendantÐ È(À!$ Ðfrom€approximately€1985€to€1990.€€She€alleged€that€her€supervisors€subjectedÐ ¨* #& Ðher€to€a€"sexually€hostile€atmosphere."€€Her€allegations€included€sexuallyÐ ˆ,€%( Ðoffensive€comments€and€unwanted€touchingsÔ#†XsXX X¥B#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔ€from€two€of€her€supervisors,Ð h.`'* ÐSilverman€and€Terry.€Ð H0@), ÐÌà Œ àFaragher€spoke€informally€with€one€of€her€supervisors,€Gordon,€but€sheÐ 4-0 Ðdid€not€initiate€a€formal€complaint€to€upper€management.€€òòFaragheróó,€118€S.Ct.€atÐ è5à.2 Ð2281.€€She€left€her€job€as€a€lifeguard€in€1990.€€The€City€remained€unaware€of€theÐ È7À04 Ðalleged€sexual€harassment€until€April€of€1990€when€one€of€Faragher's€co„workersÐ ¨9 26 Ðcomplained€of€sexual€harassment€in€a€letter€to€the€City's€Director€of€Personnel.€Ð  ÐThe€City€investigated€the€complaint€and€reprimanded€the€harassing€supervisors.€Ð èà ÐFaragher€initiated€suit€in€1992€alleging€violations€of€Title€VII.Ð È À ÐÌà Œ àThe€City€of€Boca€Raton€had€adopted€an€anti„sexual€harassment€policy€inÐ ˆ€ Ð1986.€€òòId.óó€at€2280.€€Although€the€1986€policy€was€addressed€to€all€CityÐ h`  Ðemployees,€the€policy€was€issued€only€to€a€portion€of€the€City€employees.€€TheÐ H@  ÐCity€revised€and€reissued€the€policy€in€1990.€€òòId.óó€€The€revised€policy€detailed€theÐ (  ÐCity's€policy€against€sexual€harassment.€€òòId.óó€at€2281,€2294.€€The€policy€was€notÐ  Ðproperly€disseminated,€and€Faragher's€supervisors€were€unaware€of€the€anti„Ð èà Ðharassment€policy€prior€to€litigation.Ð ÈÀ ÐÌà Œ àThe€district€court€ruled€that€the€City€was€liable€for€sexual€harassmentÐ ˆ€ Ðbecause:€€(1)€the€City€had€"knowledge€or€constructive€knowledge"€of€theÐ h` Ðharassment;€(2)€the€harassing€supervisors€were€acting€as€agents€of€the€City;€andÐ H!@ Ð(3)€Gordon's€knowledge€of€the€sexual€harassment€could€be€imputed€to€the€City.€Ð (#  ÐThe€Eleventh€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€district€court's€holding€thatÐ %  Ðthe€City€was€liable.€€The€Eleventh€Circuit€reasoned€that€the€supervisors'€acts€ofÐ è&à" Ðsexual€harassment€were€outside€the€scope€of€employment€and€that€their€conductÐ È(À!$ Ðwas€not€aided€by€the€agency€relationship.€€òòId.óó€at€2281.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ ¨* #& Ðgranted€certiorari.Ð ˆ,€%( ÐÌÔ  ÔòòÓ  ÓBurlington€Industries,€Inc.€v.€EllerthóóÐ H0@), ÐÓ—VÓÌà Œ àEllerth€was€employed€by€Burlington€as€a€salesperson€for€approximatelyÐ 4-0 Ðone€year.€€Ellerth's€immediate€supervisor€reported€to€Slowik.€€Ellerth€alleged€thatÐ è5à.2 ÐSlowik€subjected€her€to€sexual€harassment.€€Her€allegations€included€"repeatedÐ È7À04 Ðboorish€and€offensive€remarks€and€gestures."€€òòEllerthóó,€118€S.Ct.€at€2262.€€First,Ð ¨9 26 Ðshe€claimed€that€Slowik€made€comments€concerning€her€breasts€and€told€herÐ  Ðthat€he€could€"make€[her]€life€very€hard€or€very€easy€at€Burlington."€€òòId.óó€€Second,Ð èà Ðshe€maintained€that€Slowik€informed€her€she€was€not€"loose€enough"€and€rubbedÐ È À Ðher€knee€during€an€interview€for€a€promotion.€€òòId.óó€€Finally,€she€alleged€that€SlowikÐ ¨   Ðtold€her€during€a€telephone€conversation€that€her€job€would€be€easier€if€she€woreÐ ˆ€ Ðshorter€skirts.€€òòId.óóÐ h`  ÐÌà Œ àBurlington's€policy€against€sexual€harassment€was€contained€in€theÐ (  Ðemployee's€handbook.€€Ellerth€had€received€the€employee's€handbook€and€wasÐ  Ðaware€of€the€policy.€€She,€however,€never€complained€to€anyone€in€authorityÐ èà Ðconcerning€her€allegations€against€Slowik.€€She€later€quit€her€job.€€òòId.óó€at€2262-63.Ð ÈÀ ÐÌà Œ àEllerth€filed€suit€in€the€district€court€under€Title€VII€alleging€sexualÐ ˆ€ Ðharassment€and€constructive€discharge.€€The€district€court€granted€summaryÐ h` Ðjudgment€to€Burlington€holding€that€Burlington€"neither€knew€or€should€haveÐ H!@ Ðknown"€about€Slowik's€behavior€because€Ellerth€failed€to€use€Burlington'sÐ (#  Ðgrievance€procedures.€€òòId.óó€at€2263.€€The€Seventh€Circuit€Court€of€AppealsÐ %  Ðreversed€the€district€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€The€Seventh€CircuitÐ è&à" Ðsitting€en€banc€issued€eight€separate€opinions€with€no€consensus€for€aÐ È(À!$ Ðcontrolling€rationale€of€the€standard€for€employer€liability.€€The€majority€of€theÐ ¨* #& ÐSeventh€Circuit,€however,€did€categorize€Ellerth's€claim€as€quid€pro€quoÐ ˆ,€%( Ðharassment€but€failed€to€agree€on€whether€to€apply€a€standard€of€negligence€orÐ h.`'* Ðvicarious€liability.Ð H0@), Ðâ âÐ (2 +. ÐÔ  Ôâ âÓ  ÓòòSupreme€Court's€Holdings€in€Faragher€and€EllerthóóÐ  ÐÓ`ÓÌà Œ àThe€Supreme€Court€granted€certiorari€in€òòFaragheróó€Ô#†XsXX X¥hM#ÔÔ‡ X¥XXXsÔand€òòEllerthóó€to€define€theÐ È À Ðstandard€for€imposing€employer€liability€in€supervisor€sexual€harassment€cases.€Ð ¨   ÐIn€òòEllerthóó,€the€Court€was€asked€to€decide€"whether€an€employee€who€refusesÐ ˆ€ Ðunwelcome€and€threatening€sexual€advances€by€a€supervisor€but€suffers€noÐ h`  Ðadverse€job€consequences€can€recover€against€the€employer€without€showingÐ H@  Ðthat€the€employer€was€negligent€or€otherwise€at€fault."€€òòId.óó€at€2262.€€In€òòFaragheróó,Ð (  Ðthe€Court€sought€to€identify€"the€circumstances€under€which€an€employer€may€beÐ  Ðheld€liable€under€Title€VII"€for€supervisor„created€hostile€work€environment€foundÐ èà Ðto€be€sexual€harassment.€€òòFaragheróó,€118€S.Ct.€at€2280.Ð ÈÀ ÐÌà Œ àThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€employers€are€vicariously€liable€for€all€formsÐ ˆ€ Ðof€supervisor€sexual€harassment€actionable€under€Title€VII€regardless€of€whetherÐ h` Ðthe€conduct€constitutes€quid€pro€quo€sexual€harassment€or€hostile€workÐ H!@ Ðenvironment€sexual€harassment.€€The€Court€rejected€the€argument€that€theÐ (#  Ðscope€of€employment€was€the€only€basis€for€defining€employer€liability.€€TheÐ %  ÐCourt€looked€generally€to€the€Restatement€of€Agency€ðð€219(2)(d)׃ ×Ý ƒ «ªÝÔ€XsXX X¥ÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€held€that:Ð è&à" ÐÌÓÓà8 Œ àAn€employer€is€subject€to€vicarious€liability€to€a€victimized€employeeÐ ˜*#& Ðfor€an€actionable€hostile€work€environment€created€by€a€supervisorÐ ~+v$' Ðwith€immediate€(or€successively€higher)€authority€over€theÐ d,\%( Ðemployee.€€When€no€tangible€employment€action€is€taken,€aÐ J-B&) Ðdefending€employer€may€raise€an€affirmative€defense€to€liability€orÐ 0.('* Ðdamages,€subject€to€proof€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€.€.€.€Ð /(+ ÐThe€defense€comprises€two€necessary€elements:€€(a)€that€theÐ ü/ô(, Ðemployer€exercised€reasonable€care€to€prevent€and€correctÐ  Ðpromptly€any€sexually€harassing€behavior,€and€(b)€that€the€plaintiffÐ îæ Ðemployee€unreasonably€failed€to€take€advantage€of€any€preventiveÐ ÔÌ Ðor€corrective€opportunities€provided€by€the€employer€or€to€avoidÐ º ² Ðharm€otherwise€.€.€.€.€€No€affirmative€defense€is€available,€however,Ð   ˜ Ðwhen€the€supervisor's€sexual€harassment€culminates€in€a€tangibleÐ † ~ Ðemployment€action€.€.€.€.ÓwgÓÐl dŒ ü!Œ ü! ÐÌòòFaragheróó,€118€S.Ct.€at€2292„93;€òòEllerthóó,€118€S.Ct.€at€2270.€€Accordingly,€anÐ ü  Ðemployer€may€now€avoid€liability€for€supervisor€sexual€harassment€under€Title€VIIÐ ÐÈ  Ðonly€when:€€(1)€a€tangible€employment€action€has€not€occurred;€and€(2)€theÐ œ”  Ðemployer€establishes€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€it€meets€theÐ h` Ðrequired€elements€of€the€affirmative€defense.Ð 4, ÐÌà Œ àUnder€the€newly€enunciated€standard,€the€Court€reversed€the€EleventhÐ ÌÄ ÐCircuit€in€òòFaragheróó€and€held€that€the€City€of€Boca€Raton€was€vicariously€liable€forÐ ˜ Ðthe€supervisor„created€hostile€work€environment€found€by€the€district€court.€€TheÐ d\ ÐCourt€found€that€Faragher€did€not€experience€a€tangible€employment€action.€€Ð 0 ( ÐThe€Court,€therefore,€analyzed€whether€the€City€could€establish€the€affirmativeÐ ü!ô Ðdefense.€€The€Court€held€that,€based€upon€the€findings€of€the€trial€court,€the€CityÐ È#À  Ðfailed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€to€prevent€the€sexual€harassment€and€wasÐ ”%Œ" Ðunable€to€avail€itself€of€the€affirmative€defense.€€òòFaragheróó,€118€S.Ct.€at€2293.Ô#†XsXXXsMa#ÔÐ `'X $ ÐÌà Œ àSimilarly,€the€Court€held€in€òòEllerthóó€that€Burlington€was€vicariously€liable€forÐ ø*ð#( ÐSlowik's€conduct€in€creating€a€hostile€work€environment.€€Ellerth€did€not€sustain€aÐ Ä,¼%* Ðtangible€job€loss,€so€the€affirmative€defense€was€available€to€Burlington.€€TheÐ .ˆ', ÐCourt€remanded€òòEllerthóó€to€afford€Burlington€the€opportunity€to€establish€theÐ \0T). Ðaffirmative€defense.Ð (2 +0 Ðâ âÐ ô3ì,2 ÐÔ  Ôâ âò òÓ  ÓIMPACT€OF€Ô‡XsXXXsÔòòFARAGHERóó€AND€òòELLERTHóó€Ô#†XsXXXs{s#ÔON€òòCARRó óóóÐ  ÐÓesÓÌà Œ àòòCarróó€is€now€inconsistent€with€federal€law€on€supervisor€sexual€harassmentÐ ¬ ¤ Ðfollowing€the€recent€Supreme€Court€decisions.€€òòCarróó€employed€the€pre„òòFaragheróóÐ x p Ðand€pre„òòEllerthóó€separate€categories€of€quid€pro€quo€and€supervisor„createdÐ D< Ðhostile€work€environment.€€In€òòCarróó,€an€employer's€liability€was€premised€upon€aÐ   Ðstandard€of€negligence€for€supervisor„created€hostile€work€environment€andÐ ÜÔ  Ðupon€vicarious€liability€for€quid€pro€quo€harassment.€€While€the€terms€quid€proÐ ¨   Ðquo€and€hostile€work€environment€are€no€longer€relevant€under€the€federalÐ tl Ðanalysis€when€determining€the€employer's€standard€of€liability€under€Title€VII,€theÐ @8 Ðterms€are€relevant€for€illustrating€"the€distinction€between€cases€involving€a€threatÐ   Ðwhich€is€carried€out€and€offensive€conduct€in€general."€€òòEllerthóó,€118€S.Ct.€atÐ ØÐ Ð2265.€€The€terms€retain€further€relevance€"when€there€is€a€threshold€questionÐ ¤œ Ðwhether€a€plaintiff€can€prove€discrimination€in€violation€of€Title€VII."€€òòId.óóÐ ph ÐÌà Œ àThe€legislature's€stated€purpose€in€codifying€the€THRA€was€to€prohibitÐ " Ðdiscrimination€in€a€manner€consistent€with€ð ðthe€federal€Civil€Rights€Acts€of€1964,Ð Ô#Ì  Ð1968,€and€1972,€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1),€„101(a)(2).€Ð  %˜" ÐAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€stated€purpose€behind€the€enactment€of€our€THRAÐ l'd $ Ðwill€be€best€served€by€maintaining€continuity€between€our€state€law€and€theÐ 8)0"& Ðfederal€law€on€the€issue€of€imposing€employer€liability€for€supervisor€sexualÐ +ü#( Ðharassment.€€We,€therefore,€adopt€the€Supreme€Court's€recently€articulatedÐ Ð,È%* Ðstandard€of€vicarious€liability€in€all€supervisor€sexual€harassment€cases.Ð œ.”', ÐÌà Œ àWe€hold€that,€under€the€THRA,€an€employer€is€subject€to€vicarious€liabilityÐ 42,+0 Ðto€a€victimized€employee€for€actionable€hostile€work€environment€sexualÐ 4ø,2 Ðharassment€by€a€supervisor€with€immediate€(or€successively€higher)€authorityÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðover€the€employee.€€The€defending€employer€may€raise€an€affirmative€defense€toÐ ˜706 Ðliability€or€damages€when€no€tangible€employment€action€has€been€taken.€€TheÐ d9\28 Ðaffirmative€defense€is€comprised€of€two€necessary€elements:€€(1)€that€theÐ  Ðemployer€exercised€reasonable€care€to€prevent€and€correct€promptly€anyÐ ÔÌ Ðsexually€harassing€behavior;€and€(2)€that€the€plaintiff€employee€unreasonablyÐ   ˜ Ðfailed€to€take€advantage€of€any€preventive€or€corrective€opportunities€provided€byÐ l d Ðthe€employer€or€that€the€employee€unreasonably€failed€to€otherwise€avoid€theÐ 80 Ðharm.€€The€affirmative€defense€shall€not€be€available€to€the€employer€when€theÐ ü  Ðsupervisor's€sexual€harassment€has€culminated€in€a€tangible€employment€action.€Ð ÐÈ  ÐOur€decision€in€òòCarróó€is€thus€modified€to€reflect€the€above€standard€recentlyÐ œ”  Ðarticulated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€and€òòCarróó€is€overruled€only€to€theÐ h` Ðextent€that€the€decision€is€inconsistent€with€the€above€standard.Ð 4, ÐÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓAPPLICATION€TO€FACTSó óÐ ÌÄ ÐÓËÓÌà Œ àThe€Utility€District€argues€that€it€is€not€liable€and€is€entitled€to€summaryÐ ph Ðjudgment€because€the€harassing€supervisor€did€not€act€within€the€scope€of€hisÐ < 4 Ðemployment.€€Section€219(1)€of€the€Restatement€of€Agency€states€thatÐ " Ðemployers€are€liable€for€the€torts€committed€by€employees€"while€acting€in€theÐ Ô#Ì  Ðscope€of€their€employment."€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòFaragheróó€lamented€that€theÐ  %˜" Ðphrase€"scope€of€employment"€provided€little€guidance€and€held€that€ðð€219(1)Ð l'd $ Ðdoes€not€serve€as€the€sole€basis€for€imposing€employer€liability.€€We€haveÐ 8)0"& Ðadopted€the€Supreme€Court's€vicarious€liability€standard,€and€the€defendant'sÐ +ü#( Ðassertion€is€inconsistent€with€the€adoption€of€that€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóóÐ Ð,È%* ÐRestatement€of€Agency€ðð€219(2)(d).€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€defendantÐ œ.”', Ðwould€be€vicariously€liable€for€Grissom's€alleged€sexual€harassment.Ð h0`). ÐÌà Œ àWe€shall€next€examine€whether€the€plaintiff€was€subject€to€a€tangibleÐ 4ø,2 Ðemployment€action.€€The€plaintiff€alleges€in€her€complaint€that€she€"received€lessÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðmoney€than€she€would€have€received€except€that€she€has€not€complied€withÐ ˜706 ÐDavid€Grissom's€demands€and€requests€.€.€."€€The€plaintiff€also€contends€that€sheÐ d9\28 Ðwas€the€"lowest€paid€office€employee."€€The€record€reflects€that€the€plaintiffÐ  Ðcontinued€to€work€for€the€defendant€at€the€time€the€lawsuit€was€initiated.€€SheÐ ÔÌ Ðoccupied€the€same€position€she€had€attained€two€months€after€she€began€herÐ   ˜ Ðemployment€with€the€defendant.€€She€apparently€received€the€maximum€pay€rateÐ l d Ðfor€her€position,€received€annual€cost€of€living€increases,€and€received€someÐ 80 Ðmerit€raises.€€The€record€in€this€case€is€insufficient€to€show€that€the€plaintiff€hasÐ ü  Ðsuffered€a€tangible€employment€action.€€The€defendant,€therefore,€is€entitled€toÐ ÐÈ  Ðraise€the€affirmative€defense€under€the€current€facts.Ð œ”  ÐÌà Œ àThe€affirmative€defense€requires€the€defendant€to€establish€both:€€(1)€thatÐ 4, Ðit€exercised€reasonable€care€to€prevent€and€correct€the€harassing€behavior;€andÐ ø Ð(2)€that€the€plaintiff€unreasonably€failed€to€take€advantage€of€any€preventive€orÐ ÌÄ Ðcorrective€opportunities€provided€by€the€employer€or€that€the€employeeÐ ˜ Ðunreasonably€failed€to€otherwise€avoid€the€harm.€€The€facts€in€this€case€areÐ d\ Ðsimilar€to€those€in€òòFaragheróó.€€The€plaintiff€discussed€Grissom's€sexualÐ 0 ( Ðharassment€with€her€supervisor,€Link.€€She,€like€Faragher,€never€initiated€aÐ ü!ô Ðformal€complaint.€€The€harassment€in€both€cases€continued€for€several€yearsÐ È#À  Ðeven€though€both€plaintiffs€complained€of€the€harassment€informally€toÐ ”%Œ" Ðsupervisors.€€Both€employers€alleged€they€were€unaware€of€the€harassmentÐ `'X $ Ðbecause€the€plaintiffs€never€initiated€formal€complaints.€€The€Utility€DistrictÐ ,)$"& Ðappears€to€allege€that€it€had€a€sexual€harassment€policy€in€place€when€theÐ ø*ð#( Ðalleged€harassment€occurred.€€A€specific€anti„sexual€harassment€policy,Ð Ä,¼%* Ðhowever,€has€not€been€brought€to€this€Court's€attention.€€Moreover,€if€an€anti„Ð .ˆ', Ðsexual€harassment€policy€had€been€in€existence€at€the€time€of€the€allegedÐ \0T). Ðharassment,€the€Utility€District€apparently€failed€to€properly€disseminate€theÐ (2 +0 Ðpolicy.€€Link€testified€that€she€thought€the€Utility€District€had€a€grievanceÐ ô3ì,2 Ðprocedure€but€that€to€her€knowledge€the€procedure€was€never€explained€to€her€orÐ À5¸.4 Ðâ âto€any€other€Utility€District€employees.€€Grissom,€however,€testified€that€a€policyÐ Œ7„06 Ðagainst€sexual€harassment€was€not€in€force€when€the€alleged€harassmentÐ  Ðoccurred.Ð ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Œ àThe€record€currently€before€us€is€devoid€of€evidence€to€support€a€findingÐ l d Ðthat€the€Utility€District€exercised€reasonable€care€to€prevent€the€alleged€sexualÐ 80 Ðharassment.€€Moreover,€the€Utility€District€has€failed€to€either€establish€theÐ ü  Ðpresence€of€a€written€anti„discrimination€policy€that€was€properly€disseminated€toÐ ÐÈ  Ðits€employees€or€establish€the€presence€of€a€policy€suitable€to€deal€with€theÐ œ”  Ðemployment€circumstances€of€this€case.Ð h` ÐÌà Œ àThe€trial€court's€decision€to€grant€the€defendant's€motion€for€summaryÐ ø Ðjudgment€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€actionÐ ÌÄ Ðconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€We€have€modified€our€decision€in€òòCarróó€to€reflect€theÐ ˜ Ðrecently€articulated€standard€for€supervisor€harassment€adopted€by€the€UnitedÐ d\ ÐStates€Supreme€Court.€€As€stated€above,€the€defendant€cannot€establish€theÐ 0 ( Ðaffirmative€defense€on€this€record.€€On€remand,€however,€the€Utility€District€shallÐ ü!ô Ðbe€afforded€the€opportunity€to€assert€facts€that€may€establish€the€elements€of€theÐ È#À  Ðaffirmative€defense€that€we€have€adopted€today.€€Cost€of€this€appeal€shall€beÐ ”%Œ" Ðtaxed€against€the€Utility€District€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð `'X $ ÐÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú àòòà€T$T$MT$àóóˆÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà  àà Ú àJANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUSTICEÐ ª-¢&+ ÐÌÌÌò òConcurring:ó óÐ B1:*/ ÐÌAnderson,€C.J.Ð 3 ,1 ÐDrowota,€Birch,€and€Barker,€J.J.