ÿWPCJ& =# fU:q %« 0 (±LÙwš%4¿Ó 0ˆâjr 0Dz 0J¾ 0T 0^\ 0hº 0r" 0|” 0† 0– B& AQC Æ” 0DZ 0@ž 0DÞ 1u" D/— 0dÆ B* D3G U *z B)¤ DCÍ AM]rtó+öÄ!åv~ùvÓw ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTËtÌÍIÎ ÏUÐÑPÒ ÓÔ ÕÖP×EØÙ ÚÛ ÜÝ ÞßDàUáÓ€âãzƒ=#†ÔÔôî×?3|xã(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(('÷ÿ dxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd!#2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌOctober€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€in€this€case€consists€only€of€the€Order€Certifying€Question€toÏthe€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee.Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€federal€courts'€use€of€the€term€òòrespondeat€superioróó€hasÏcreated€considerable€confusion.€€As€discussed€later€in€this€opinion,€derivativeÏliability€principles€are€applicable€only€in€quid€pro€quo€harassment€cases.€€TheÏfederal€courts,€however,€have€held€that€the€"any€agent"€provision€createdÏrespondeat€superior€liability.€€Accordingly,€the€federal€courts€have€continued€toÏincorrectly€employ€the€term€òòrespondeat€superioróó€as€an€element€in€hostile€workÏenvironment€cases€where€the€liability€is€actually€based€on€negligence.€€òòSeeóóÏòòFleenor€v.€Hewitt€Soap€Co.óó,€81€F.3d€48,€50€(6th€Cir.€1996)€(noting€termÏòòrespondeat€superioróó€"is€an€incorrect€label€for€co„worker€harassment€cases").€ÏThe€federal€courts€have€recognized€this€fallacy€and€redefined€the€termÏòòrespondeat€superioróó€for€purposes€of€Title€VII€analysis.€€To€establish€respondeatÏsuperior€in€hostile€work€environment€cases€"the€plaintiff€must€prove€'that€theÏemployer,€through€its€agents€or€supervisory€personnel,€knew€or€should€haveÏknown€of€the€charged€sexual€harassment€and€failed€to€implement€prompt€andÏappropriate€corrective€action.'"€€òòKauffman€v.€Allied€Signal,€Inc.óó,€970€F.2d€178,Ï183€(6th€Cir.€1992).Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€320€(1977).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòJanken€v.€Hughesóó,€53€Cal.€Rptr.€2d€741€(Cal€Ct.€App.€1996)€(holdingÏsupervisors€exercising€properly€delegated€management€authority€notÏindividually€liable€even€if€decisions€were€later€found€to€be€discriminatory).Ì !Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€victim's€cause€of€action€against€individual€co„workers€for€sexuallyÏharassing€conduct€may€lie€in€other€tort€theories.Ì ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€not€reflected€in€the€record,€Ms.€Carr's€brief€does€allege€that€theÏ"defendants"€refused€to€transfer€her€"so€that€she€could€get€away€from€Mr.ÏFoster."€€The€record,€however,€does€not€allege€that€the€transfer€decisions€wereÏcontinent€upon€receipt€of€"sexual€favors."Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€òòSeeóó€òòSt.€Peter€v.€Ampak„Division€of€Gatewood€Products,€Inc.óó,€484ÏS.E.2d€481€(W.€Va.€1997)€(permitting€individual€liability);€òòSchram€v.€Albertson's,ÏInc.óó,€934€P.2d€483€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(stating€supervisors€could€be€individuallyÏliable€for€aiding€and€abetting€employment€discrimination€under€state€statute);ÏòòTyson€v.€Cigna€Corp.óó,€918€F.Supp€836€(D.€N.J.€1996)€(finding€supervisoryÏemployees€may€be€held€liable€in€individual€capacity€under€state€statute);ÏòòConway€v.€City€of€Hartfordóó,€9€N.D.L.R.€P€167€(Conn.€Super.€Ct.€1997);€òòJohnsonÏv.€Canadian€Pacific€Ltd.óó,€522€N.W.2d€386€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€òòrev'dóó€òòonóó€òòotheróóÏòògroundsóó,€536€N.W.2d€319€(Minn.€1995);€òòDupus€v.€Con„test,€Inc.óó,€4€Mass.€L.€Rptr.Ï165€(Mass.€Super.€Ct.€1995)€(holding€members€of€"upper€management"€may€beÏliable€as€aiders€and€abettors).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€_íXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò ò›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌœ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€œPUBLICATIONóóó óÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òFiled:ó óòò€€€€€€October€27,€1997€à€ àóó›ÌÌKELLY€CARR,à@ àœ)à àUnited€States€District€Court›Ìà@ àœ)à àMiddle€District€of€Tennessee›Ìà àPLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,à@ àœ)à àNashville€Division›Ìà@ àœ)à àNo.€3„94„0095›Ìv.à@ àœ)›Ìà@ àœ)à àHon.€Robert€L.€Echols›ÌUNITED€PARCEL€SERVICE,€ET€AL.,à@ àœ)à àUnited€States€District€Judge›Ìà@ à)Ìà àDEFENDANT/PETITIONERS.à@ à)à àNo.€01S01„9605„FD„00090̜ـ!ÙßR€342A1-j|¾þ¯` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€PLAINTIFF:óóà àà àà àà àòòFOR€DEFENDANTS:óóÌDeanna€C.€Bellà àà àà àà àCharles€Hampton€WhiteÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àRebecca€Wells€DemareeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashvilleÌÌÌòòFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE,óóÌòòTENNESSEE€MUNICIPALóóà àà àòòFOR€AMICUS€CURIAE,óóÌòòLEAGUE€RISK€MANAGEMENT,óóà àà àòòJOYCE€M.€GRIMES:óóÌòòET€AL.óó:à àà àà àà àà àJoyce€M.€GrimesÌPamela€Lynn€Reevesà àà àà àNashvilleÌKnoxvilleÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌ›ÌÌÌà€ àHOLDER,€J.ÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThis€case€comes€to€us€on€a€certified€question€of€law.€€The€plaintiff,€KellyÏCarr,€filed€a€sexual€harassment€action€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€theÏMiddle€District€of€Tennessee€alleging€violations€of€both€Title€VII€of€the€CivilÏRights€Act€of€1964€("Title€VII")€and€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€("THRA").€ÏShe€named€as€defendants€her€employer,€United€Parcel€Service€("UPS"),€andÏthree€UPS€employees,€Ron€Foster,€Martin€Sisk,€and€Andrew€Martin.€€Foster,ÏSisk,€œand€Martin›€filed€a€œmotion€for€judgment€on€the€pleadings€arguing€that›€theyÏcould€not€be€held€individually€liable€under€either€Title€VII€or€the€THRA.€€TheÏdistrict€court€entered€an€order€requesting€this€Court€ð ðto€resolve€the€issue€ofÏwhether€a€defendant€can€be€held€individually€liable€under€THRA."€€We€acceptedÏcertification€of€the€question.€€We€hold€that,€under€the€facts€as€certified€to€us,€theÏTHRA€does€not€impose€individual€liability€in€this€case.ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔBACKGROUNDó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àPlaintiff€alleges€that€she€was€physically€and€verbally€sexually€harassedÏby€Foster€during€her€employment€with€UPS.€€Plaintiff€maintains€that€on€or€aboutÏJanuary€29,€1993,€Foster€rubbed€her€posterior€and€stated€"I€just€rubbed€Kelly'sÏass.€€I€hope€she€does€not€file€harassment€charges."€€Plaintiff€contends€that€Sisk,Ïa€supervisor,€witnessed€the€January€incident€and€failed€to€take€remedial€action.€ÍPlaintiff€apparently€alleges€several€other€instances€of€sexually€offensive€conductÏinvolving€the€defendants€either€directly€or€indirectly.€€The€allegations€are€notÏspecified€in€the€record.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€The€record€before€us€is€also€devoid€of€specificÏallegations€of€sexual€harassment€against€Martin.ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔEMPLOYMENT„RELATED€DISCRIMINATIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€THRA€is€a€comprehensive€anti„discrimination€statute€that€is€codifiedÏat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101€to€„905€(Repl.€1991€&€Supp.€1996).€€€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€ðð€4„21„401€prohibits€employment„related€discrimination€andÏprovides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€It€is€a€discriminatory€practice€for€an€employer€to:Ìà àÌà8 à€€(1)€€Fail€or€refuse€to€hire€or€discharge€any€person€or€otherwise€toÏdiscriminate€against€an€individual€with€respect€to€compensation,Ïterms,€conditions€or€privileges€of€employment€because€of€suchÏindividual's€race,€creed€color,€religion,€sex,€age€or€national€origin;ÓÓÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€4„21„401(a).€€The€THRA€defines€"employer"€to€include:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€the€state,€or€any€political€or€civil€subdivision€thereof,€andÏpersons€employing€eight€(8)€or€more€persons€within€the€state,€orÍany€person€acting€as€an€agent€of€an€employer,€directly€orÏindirectly;ÓÓÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„102(4)€(Supp.€1996).€€Our€initial€inquiry€is€whether€theÏlegislature€intended€to€impose€individual€liability€by€defining€employer€toÏinclude€"any€person€acting€as€an€agent€of€an€employer."ÌÌà àAlthough€the€language€of€Title€VII€and€the€THRA€differ€slightly,€it€is€clearÏthat€the€legislature€intended€the€THRA€to€be€Ô  ÔÔ  Ôcoextensive€with€federal€law.€ÏòòBennett€v.€Steiner„Liff€Iron€and€Metal€Coóó.,€826€S.W.2d€119,€121€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1)€(1991€Repl.)€(stating€purpose€andÏintent€of€general€assembly€was€to€ð ðprovide€for€execution€of€the€policiesÏembodied€in€the€federal€Civil€Rights€Acts€of€1964,€1968€and€1972,€.€.€.ðð)).€€We,Ïtherefore,€may€look€to€federal€interpretation€of€Title€VII€for€guidance€in€enforcingÏour€own€anti„discrimination€statute.€€We,€however,€are€neither€bound€by€norÏlimited€by€federal€law€when€interpreting€the€THRA.€ÌÌà àœTitle›€VII€defines€employer€as€including€"any€agent"€of€the€employer.€€œThe›Ïmajority€of€the€federal€œcircuits›€addressing€this€issue€have€held€that€the€"anyÍagent"€provision€incorporates€œrespondeat›€œsuperior›€liabilityœ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€and€œdoes›€notÏimpose€individual€liability.€€òòDici€v.€Pennsylvaniaóó,€91€F.3d€542,€552€(3d€Cir.Ï1996);€òòTomka€v.€Seiler€Corp.óó,€66€F.3d€1295,€1312€(2d€Cir.€1995);€òòGreenlaw€v.ÏGarrettóó,€59€F.3d€994,€1001€(9th€Cir.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€117€S.Ct.€110,€136ÏL.Ed.2d€63€(1996);€òòGary€v.€Longóó,€59€F.3d€1391,€1400€(D.C.€Cir.€1995);€òòEEOC€v.ÏAIC€Security€Investigationsóó,€55€F.3d€1276,€1281€(7th€Cir.€1995);€òòLenhardt€v.ÏBasic€Inst.€of€Tech.óó,€55€F.3d€377,€381€(8th€Cir.€1995);€òòGrant€v.€Lone€Star€Co.óó,€21ÏF.3d€649,€652€(5th€Cir.€1994);€òòSauers€v.€Salt€Lake€Countyóó,€1€F.3d€1122,€1125Ï(10th€Cir.€1993);€òòMiller€v.€Maxwell's€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€991€F.2d€583,€587€(9th€Cir.€1993);ÏòòBusby€v.€City€of€Orlandoóó,€931€F.2d€764,€772€(11th€Cir.€1991)€(per€curiam).€ÏThese€circuits€have€œreasoned›€that€individual€liability€is€inconsistent€with€TitleÏVII's€original€remedy€provision€and€its€exemption€for€small€businesses.Ì€€Ìà àThe€THRA's€definition€of€employer€is€ambiguous€and€susceptible€to€twoÏreasonable€interpretations.€€œPlaintiff›€urges€œthat›€every€supervisor€is€anÏ"employer"€for€purposes€of€the€THRA.€€€Under€this€construction,€supervisors€mayÏbe€held€individually€liable€for€violations€of€the€THRA.€€œA›€second€construction€isÏthat€an€employer€is€vicariously€liable€for€its€supervisory€employees'€quid€proÏquo€violations€of€the€THRA.ÌÌà àœWe›€find€the€vicarious€liability€construction€more€compelling€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:€€(1)€€the€construction€is€consistent€with€the€THRA's€exemptionÏfor€small€businesses;€(2)€€agents€are€generally€not€individually€liable€for€actsÏundertaken€on€behalf€of€a€disclosed€principal€that€are€within€the€legitimateÏscope€of€the€delegated€management€authority;× ƒ7 ××  ×€and€(3)€€the€construction€isÏconsistent€œwith€the€federal€courts'€interpretation›€of€Title€VII.€€The€slight€deviationÏof€the€THRA's€definition€of€employer€from€Title€VII's€definition€does€not€warrantÏan€interpretation€that€would€be€inconsistent€with€Title€VII.€€We€agree€with€theÏfederal€courts'€analyses€and€hold€that€the€THRA's€"agent€of€an€employer"Ïlanguage€does€not€impose€individual€œliability.›ÌÌà àOur€inquiry,€however,€does€not€end€with€this€conclusion€as€the€THRA€isÏbroader€than€Title€VII€in€terms€of€who€may€be€held€liable€for€harassment€andÏdiscrimination.€€The€THRA€is€applicable€to€entities€employing€fewer€employeesÏthan€that€required€by€Title€VII.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„102(4)€(definingÏemployer€to€include€persons€employing€eight€or€more€persons);€òòbutóó€òòseeóó€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð€2000e(b)€(defining€employer€as€person€employing€fifteen€or€moreÏemployees).€€Moreover,€the€THRA€provides€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[i]t€is€a€discriminatory€practice€for€a€person€or€for€two€(2)€or€moreÏpersons€to:Ìà àà8 à.€.€.ÌÌà0 à(2)€€Aid,€abet,€incite,€compel€or€command€a€person€to€engage€in€any€ofÏthe€acts€or€practices€declared€discriminatory€by€this€chapter;€ÓÓÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„301(2)€(1991€Repl.).€€A€"person"€is€defined€as€"one€(1)Ïor€more€individuals,€governments,€governmental€agencies,€public€authorities,Ïlabor€organizations,€corporations,€legal€representatives,€partnerships,Ïassociations,€.€.€€unincorporated€organizations€or€other€organized€persons."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„102(14).€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€an€individual€whoÏaids,€abets,€incites,€compels,€or€commands€an€employer€to€engage€inÏemployment„related€discrimination€has€violated€the€THRA.ÌÌà àBecause€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„301(a)(2)€creates€accomplice€liability,Ïwe€must€analyze€the€elements€of€accomplice€liability€to€determine€how€anÏindividual€employee€might€aid€and€abet€an€employer€in€violating€the€THRA.€€TheÏTHRA€does€not€provide€a€definition€of€"aiding€and€abetting."€€The€common€lawÏcivil€liability€theory€of€aiding€and€abetting€required€that:ÌÌÓÓà8 àthe€defendant€knew€that€his€companions'€conduct€constituted€aÏbreach€of€duty,€and€that€he€gave€substantial€assistance€orÏencouragement€to€them€in€their€acts.ÓÓÌòòÌCecil€v.€Hardinóó,€575€S.W.2d€268,€272€(Tenn.€1978)€òòcitingóó€Restatement€(Second)Ïof€Torts€ðð€876(b)€(1965).€€Accordingly,€civil€liability€for€aiding€and€abettingÏrequires€affirmative€conduct.€€Failure€to€act€or€mere€presence€during€theÏcommission€of€a€tort€is€insufficient€for€tort€accomplice€liability.ÌÌœà àWe€shall€now›€examine€the€elements€of€employer€or€principal€liability€forÏviolations€of€the€THRA.€€There€are€three€general€classifications€of€sexualÏharassment:€€(1)€€hostile€work€environment€created€by€non„supervisoryÏemployees€or€co„workers;€(2)€€quid€pro€quo€harassment;€and€(3)€€hostile€workÏenvironment€created€by€supervisory€employees.ÌÌÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔCO„WORKER€HARASSMENTó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àAn€employer's€liability€for€a€hostile€work€environment€created€by€non„supervisory€employees€(co„workers)€is€based€on€a€theory€of€negligence€and€notÏœrespondeat›€œsuperior.›€€To€prevail€on€a€claim€of€co„worker€harassment,€a€plaintiffÏmust€assert€and€prove:ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€the€employee€was€a€member€of€a€protected€class;€(2)€€œtheÏemployee€was€subjected€to€unwelcomed€sexual›€harassment;€(3)€Ïthe€harassment€occurred€because€of€the€employee's€gender;€(4)€Ïthe€harassment€affected€a€"term,€condition€or€privilege"€ofÏemployment;€and€(5)€€the€employer€knew€or€should€have€known€ofÏthe€harassment€and€failed€to€respond€with€prompt€and€appropriateÏcorrective€action.ÓÓÌÌòòSpicer€v.€Beaman€Bottling€Co.óó,€937€S.W.2d€œ884,€888€(Tenn.›€1996).€€AnÏemployer,€therefore,€is€liable€for€the€conduct€of€non„supervisory€employees€onlyÏas€a€by„product€of€its€reaction€to€the€employee's€conduct€and€not€as€a€directÏresult€of€the€actual€conduct.€€œAccordingly,›€ðð€4„21„401€liability€under€a€co„workerÏharassment€theory€is€premised€on€the€employer's€œreaction€and€not€on€the›€co„worker's€harassing€œconduct.›ÌÌà àA€non„supervisory€employee€who€engages€in€discriminatory€conductÏdoes€not,€merely€by€that€conduct,€aid€and€abet€the€employer's€failure€to€takeÍremedial€action.€€A€œnon„supervisor›€neither€has€a€role€in€the€employer's€reactionÏnor€shares€a€common€intent€or€purpose€with€the€employer€who€simply€fails€toÏrespond€to€the€discriminatory€conduct.€€œPermitting›€suits€against€non„supervisorsÏfor€their€harassing€conduct,€under€an€aiding€and€abetting€theory,€also€servesÏlittle€remedial€purpose.€€If€an€employer€responds€promptly€and€appropriately€toÏthe€harassment,€the€THRA€has€not€been€violated.€€If€the€employer€fails€to€takeÏappropriate€corrective€actions,€the€employer€is€liable.€€Accordingly,€ðð€4„21„401Ïdoes€not€redress€a€co„worker's€harassing€conduct.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€Section€4„21„401€merelyÏprovides€a€remedy€for€the€employer's€failure€to€take€corrective€action€in€a€co„worker€harassment€œcase.›ÌÌœ›à àIndividual€accomplice€liability€under€a€hostile€work€environment€theoryÏrequires€conduct€that€is€distinct€from€the€harassment.€€To€impose€individualÏaccomplice€liability€on€a€non„supervisory€employee,€a€court€must€find:ÌÌà8 à(1)€€that€a€hostile€work€environment€existed;Ìà8 à(2)€€that€the€employee€acted€affirmatively€to€aid,€abet,€incite,Ïcompel,€or€command€an€employer€not€to€take€remedial€action€toÏthe€hostile€work€environment;€andÌà8 à(3)€€that€the€employer€engaged€in€employment„relatedÏdiscrimination€by€failing€to€take€adequate€remedial€action.ÌÌAlthough€a€non„supervisor€will€rarely€possess€the€ability€to€prevent€an€employerÏfrom€taking€remedial€action,€the€non„supervisor€should€be€liable€for€conductÏwhich€encourages€or€prevents€an€employer€from€taking€remedial€œaction.›ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€claims€against€Foster€are€predicated€on€hostile€workÏenvironment.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€before€us€that€Foster€had€anyÏsupervisory€authority€over€the€plaintiff€or€encouraged€UPS€not€to€take€correctiveÏaction.€€Under€the€facts€as€certified,€Foster€cannot€be€held€individually€liable€forÏaiding€and€abetting€an€employer€violation€of€the€THRA.ÌÌÔ  ÔÔ  Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ  ÔÔ  ÔSUPERVISOR€HARASSMENTó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àCases€involving€co„worker€harassment€are€relatively€simple.€€The€moreÏdifficult€issues€arise€when€the€harasser€is€a€supervisor.€€There€are€two€generalÏclassifications€of€supervisor€harassment:€€(1)€€the€"quid€pro€quo"€theory€of€sexualÏharassment;€and€(2)€€the€hostile€work€environment€created€by€a€supervisor.ÌÌœÔ  Ô›òòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔQuid€Pro€QuoóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àQuid€pro€quo€harassment€occurs€when€a€supervisor€conditionsÏemployment€benefits€on€"sexual€favors."€€To€prevail€under€a€quid€pro€quoÏtheory,€plaintiff€must€show:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€€that€the€employee€was€a€member€of€a€protected€class;€(2)€€thatÏthe€employee€was€subjected€to€unwelcome€sexual€harassment€inÏthe€form€of€sexual€advances€or€requests€for€sexual€favors;€(3)€€thatÏthe€harassment€complained€of€was€based€on€sex;€(4)€€that€theÏemployee's€submission€to€the€unwelcome€advances€was€anÏexpress€or€implied€condition€for€receiving€job€benefits€or€that€theÏemployee's€refusal€to€submit€to€the€supervisor's€demands€resultedÏin€a€tangible€job€detriment;€and€(5)€€the€existence€of€respondeatÏsuperior€liability.ÓÓÌòòÌKauffman€v.€Allied€Signal,€Inc.óó,€970€F.2d€178,€186€(6th€Cir.€1992).ÌÌà àThe€employer€is€strictly€liable€for€a€supervisor's€quid€pro€quo€harassmentÏunder€the€doctrine€of€œrespondeat›€œsuperior.›€€Strict€liability€is€imposed€based€onÏthe€theory€that:€€(1)€€a€supervisor€is€the€alter€ego€of€the€employer;€and€(2)€€aÏsupervisor€has€the€actual€or€apparent€authority€to€alter€an€employee's€terms€orÏconditions€of€employment.€€Under€this€alter€ego€theory€of€liability,€theÏsupervisor's€acts€within€the€scope€of€employment€are€imputed€to€the€employer.ÌÌà àThe€record€as€certified€provides€no€allegation€that€either€Martin€or€SiskÏutilized€their€actual€or€apparent€authority€to€obtain€"sexual€favors."× ƒ9 ××  ×€€We€find€thatÏthe€plaintiff's€claims€against€both€Martin€and€Sisk€are€properly€classified€asÏsupervisors€failing€to€prevent€the€misconduct€of€a€subordinate.€€The€mere€failureÏto€act,€however,€does€not€constitute€the€giving€of€"substantial€assistance€orÏencouragement."€€Accordingly,€neither€Sisk€nor€Martin€can€be€held€individuallyÏliable,€as€aiders€and€abetters,€on€the€facts€presently€before€us.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€facts€as€certified€do€not€support€a€finding€of€quid€pro€quoÏharassment,€we€acknowledge€that€several€state€anti„discrimination€statutesÏcontaining€aiding€and€abetting€provisions€have€been€interpreted€to€imposeÏindividual€liability€on€supervisors€for€quid€pro€quo€harassment.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€We€will€reserveÍdiscussion€of€supervisor€liability€for€quid€pro€quo€discrimination€under€the€THRAÏfor€a€case€in€which€the€issue€is€squarely€presented.ÌÌÔ  ÔòòÓ  ÓÔ  ÔSupervisor€Created€Hostile€Work€EnvironmentóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àSupervisor€created€hostile€work€environment€cases€differ€from€quid€proÏquo€harassment€in€that€the€supervisor€does€not€use€or€attempt€to€useÏsupervisory€authority€to€obtain€sexual€favors€from€an€employee.€€The€supervisorÏmerely€creates€a€hostile€work€environment€in€the€same€manner€as€an€employeeÏwith€no€supervisory€authority.€€Whether€the€employer€is€liable€for€its€supervisor'sÏactions€in€hostile€work€environment€claims€depends€on:€€"(1)€€whether€theÏsupervisor's€harassing€actions€were€foreseeable€or€fell€within€the€scope€ofÏemployment;€and€(2)€€even€if€they€were,€whether€the€employer€respondedÏadequately€and€effectively€to€negate€liability."€€òòPierce€v.€Commonwealth€Life€Ins.ÏCo.óó,€40€F.3d€796,€803€(6th€Cir.€1994).€€Accordingly,€the€employer's€liability€isÏpredicated€on€its€reaction€to€the€discriminatory€conduct.ÌÌà àWe€hold€that,€for€purposes€of€deciding€accomplice€liability,€a€claim€ofÏsupervisor€created€hostile€work€environment€should€be€subject€to€the€sameÏanalysis€as€a€claim€of€a€co„worker€harassment.€€Generally,€the€supervisor€andÏthe€employer€do€not€share€a€community€of€purpose€when€the€employer€fails€toÏrespond€appropriately€to€the€supervisor's€harassing€conduct.€€A€supervisor,Íhowever,€may€be€individually€liable€for€encouraging€or€preventing€the€employerÏfrom€taking€corrective€action.€€Absent€such€allegations,€neither€Martin€nor€SiskÏcan€be€held€individually€liable€under€a€hostile€work€environment€theory.ÌÌÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àBased€on€the€limited€facts€certified€to€this€Court,€we€hold€that€theseÏdefendants€cannot€be€held€individually€liable€under€the€Tennessee€HumanÏRights€Act€as€an€employer€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„401€or€for€aiding€andÏabetting€an€employer's€violation€of€ðð€4„21„401.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà àThe€clerk€will€transmit€a€copy€of€this€opinion€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.ÏSupr.€Ct.,€Rule€23(8).€€The€costs€in€this€court€will€be€taxed€to€the€plaintiff.ÌÌÌÓÓÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà àà àà àà àà àòòà€ àóóÌà àà àà àà àà àJanice€M.€Holder,€JusticeÌÔ'  ÔÌÌœÔ&  Ôò òConcurring:ó óÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€Birch,€J.J.Ô'  Ô