In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742 141 L. Ed. 2d 633, 118 S. Ct. 2257, a hostile work environment case, the Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances under which an employer might be held vicariously liable for a supervisor's harassing conduct. The court noted that, under Title VII, the term employer is defined as including agents, and Congress had directed courts to interpret Title VII in accordance with agency principles. (524 U.S. at p. 754 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 648.) The Supreme Court reviewed those principles, and noted that "the general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within the scope of employment." ( Id. at. p. 757 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 650.) However, the court continued, under the Restatement Second of Agency, section 219(2), scope of employment is not the only test for imposing vicarious liability. ( Burlington, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 758 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 650.) For example, liability may be imposed when an agent is the alter ego of the employer, or when the conduct violates a nondelegable duty of the employer, but the court found neither of these situations applicable in Burlington. ( Id. at. p. 758 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 651.) The court instead focused its attention on another basis for liability, that is, those instances when a servant is aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. ( Id. at pp. 758-760 141 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 651-652.) The court held that, when a supervisor makes a tangible employment decision, i.e., one that "constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits" ( Burlington, supra, 524 U.S. at p. 761 141 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 652-653), the imposition of vicarious liability may be appropriate ( id. at pp. 762-763 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 653). "Tangible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor. The supervisor has been empowered by the company as a distinct class of agent to make economic decisions affecting other employees under his or her control." ( Id. at p. 762 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 653.) Thus, "a tangible employment action taken by the supervisor becomes for Title VII purposes the act of the employer." (524 U.S. at p. 762 141 L. Ed. 2d at p. 653.)