29 C.F.R. § 1604.11

Sexual harassment

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. 1 Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

1 The principles involved here continue to apply to race, color, religion or national origin.

(b) In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the Commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. The determination of the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a case by case basis.

(d) With respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.

(e) An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases the Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees.

(f) Prevention is the best tool for the elimination of sexual harassment. An employer should take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment under title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned.

(g) Other related practices: Where employment opportunities or benefits are granted because of an individual's submission to the employer's sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, the employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified for but denied that employment opportunity or benefit.

Appendix A to § 1604.11—Background Information

The Commission has rescinded § 1604.11(c) of the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment, which set forth the standard of employer liability for harassment by supervisors. That section is no longer valid, in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). The Commission has issued a policy document that examines the Faragher and Ellerth decisions and provides detailed guidance on the issue of vicarious liability for harassment by supervisors. EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (6/18/99), EEOC Compliance Manual (BNA), N:4075 [Binder 3]; also available through EEOC's web site, at www.eeoc.gov., or by calling the EEOC Publications Distribution Center, at 1-800-669-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY).

(Title VII, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 253 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.)) [45 FR 74677, Nov. 10, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 58334, Oct. 29, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 746 cases (58 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). · cites it 14× “The court drew additional support for this position from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 CFR § 1604.11 (a) (1985), which set out these two types of sexual harassment claims.”

Barbara J. HENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DUNDEE, Defendant-Appellee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). · cites it 13× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a) (1981). Of course, neither the courts nor the E.”

Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 9× “2d 49 (1986) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a)(3) (1985)). To form the basis of a claim, the sexual harassment “must be sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.”

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). · cites it 6× “3d 429, 438 (CA1 1997) (applying "knew or should have known" standard to claims of environmental harassment by a supervisor); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (d) (1997) (employer is liable for coworker harassment if it "knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show…”

Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). · cites it 6× “See 29 CFR § 1604.11 (c) (1997) (vicarious liability for supervisor harassment turns on "the particular employment relationship and the job functions performed by the individual").”

Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013). · cites it 4× “See also 29 CFR §1604.11 (d) (2012); EEOC Guidance 405:7652.”

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 8× “[29 CFR 1604.11(a).] These guidelines, although not controlling, have been extensively consulted by federal courts.”

Tom PIERCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH LIFE Ins. Co. & Capital Holding Corp., Defendants-Appellees, 40 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 7× “2d 701 (1992); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (c) (“Applying general title VII principles, an employer .”

Nelson v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 38 P.3d 95 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 10× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a)(3) (2000). This court has held that a HESH claim exists when an employee can show: 1.”

Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 584 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 16× “The most important subsection in the guidelines is at 29 CFR § 1604.11 (a). This subsection provides as follows: “Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of Title VII.”

Barbara Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 830 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1987). · cites it 8× “2d at 903 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a) (1985); (3) that the harassment complained of was based on sex, Henson, 682 F.”

Tina Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, 897 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 4× “, concurring) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (c), (d) (1985)). Four years later, in Lynch v.”

Show all 746 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a) — 18 cases

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993). “[29 CFR 1604.11(a).] These guidelines, although not controlling, have been extensively consulted by federal courts.”

Joann S. Reed, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 95 F.3d 1170 (2d Cir. 1996).

Patsy Carolyn POE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie HAYDON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants, 853 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1988).

Koester v. City of Novi, 580 N.W.2d 835 (Mich. 1998).

Mechele Vinson v. Sidney L. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(1) — 1 case

Sanchez v. State, 995 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(3) — 6 cases

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993). “[29 CFR 1604.11(a).] These guidelines, although not controlling, have been extensively consulted by federal courts.”

Michael Weston v. Commonwealth of of Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Sheriff v. Midwest Health Partners, P.C., 619 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2010).

Bowen v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 639 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Utah 1986).

Radtke v. Everett, 471 N.W.2d 660 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(l) — 1 case

Sanchez v. State, 995 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(b) — 1 case

Radtke v. Everett, 501 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. 1993). “[29 CFR 1604.11(a).] These guidelines, although not controlling, have been extensively consulted by federal courts.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(b)(1981) — 1 case

Conrad v. Ara Szabo, 480 S.E.2d 801 (W. Va. 1996).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(c) — 5 cases

Pollock v. Wetterau Food Distrib. Grp., 11 S.W.3d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Mechele Vinson v. Sidney L. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

Henry v. Gehl Corp., 867 F. Supp. 960 (D. Kan. 1994).

Haught v. the Louis Berkman, LLC, 377 F. Supp. 2d 543 (N.D.W. Va. 2005).

Ortiz González v. Burger King, 189 P.R. 1 (2013).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d) — 6 cases

Michael Weston v. Commonwealth of of Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Cynthia A. Richardson v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Serv., Auburn Corr. Facility, 180 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 1999).

Ellen Howley v. Town of Stratford & William Holdsworth, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000).

Maher v. All. Mortg. Banking Corp., 650 F. Supp. 2d 249 (E.D.N.Y 2009).

Lamson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 724 F. Supp. 511 (N.D. Ohio 1989).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e) — 7 cases

Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 914 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2019).

Elise N. Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2001).

Sparks v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Bd., 792 F. Supp. 735 (N.D. Ala. 1992).

Jarman v. City of Northlake, 950 F. Supp. 1375 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

O'neill (E.D. Pa. 2025).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(f) — 5 cases

Sandra M. Clark Rhonda R. Knoop v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. Eli Brock, 400 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2005).

Cutright v. Metro. Life Ins., 491 S.E.2d 308 (W. Va. 1997).

Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 1997).

Clark v. UPS (6th Cir. 2005).

Acevedo-Torres v. Mun. of Arecibo, 941 F. Supp. 2d 224 (D.P.R. 2013).

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(g) — 1 case

Elaine Candelore v. Clark Cnty. Sanitation Dist. James E. Gans Michael G. Pierson Fred Turnier, Does I Thru Xxx, Inclusive, 975 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.