Ellerth worked for 15 months in sales at Burlington. One of her supervisors was Slowik, a mid-level manager with authority to hire, promote, and fire employees, subject to higher approval. Ellerth quit, claiming she was subject to sexually offensive remarks by Slowik and that his comments could be taken as threats to deny her job benefits.
She refused his advances, did not suffer retaliation, and was promoted once. She did not tell anyone at Burlington about the problem until after she quit and filed suit. The district court granted Burlington summary judgment. The appeals court reversed, ordering a trial. Burlington appealed.

1. The majority held that if a company has an effective in-house program to deal with discrimination complaints it presents a strong defense for the employer if not used by the employee. The dissent in this case argued that it opened the door to cases that employers cannot defend themselves against-such as this case, where the company had a policy against discrimination that was apparently violated, but the injured employee did not take advantage of company policy.
Is that likely to happen?
2. What steps should an antidiscrimination policy include?