Applying these rules here, it is undisputed that these supervisors "were granted virtually unchecked authority" over their suborc "directly controll$[$ing$]$ and supervis$[$ing$]$ all aspects of $[$Faragher$\text{'}$s$]$ day$-$to$-$day activities." It is also clear that Faragher and her c were "completely isolated from the City's higher management."

While the City would have an opportunity to raise an affirmative defense if there were any serious prospect of its presenting on from the record that any such avenue is closed. The City entirely failed to disseminate its policy against sexual harassment amo employees and its officials made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors like Terry and Silverman. The City's pc include any assurance that the harassing supervisors could be bypassed in registering complaints. Under such circumstances, matter of law that the City could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to prevent the supervisors' harassing conduct. employer of a small workforce, who might expect that sufficient care to prevent tortious behavior could be exercised informally responsible for city operations could not reasonably have thought that precautions against hostile environments in any one of departments in far$-$flung locations could be effective without communicating some formal policy against harassment, with a se complaint procedure. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Case Questions

How could the city have avoided this outcome? Explain.

Do you think that it would have made sense for the city to consider the particulars of the circumstances here, such as that lifeguards, in a remote location, who by the nature of the job would be dressed in fairly little clothing, and who, because of environment $($the beach and recreational facilities$),$ might need a different approach to sexual harassment than, say, office Explain.

What do you think of the Court's affirmative defense given to employers and employees? What are the pros and cons?