on appeal. 4 . Because we ultimately conclude that the judgment should be reversed, we express no opinion as to whether the standard employed by the district court in imposing liability is correct in light of the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) on employer liability for Title VII violations. 5 . Another line of cases finds standing under Title VII where plaintiffs have claimed that discrimination against third parties caused them to lose the benefits of interracial association. Those cases rely upon Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211-12, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972) (<HOLDING>). See Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 875
holding that title vii proscribe racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding that employers have standing to sue holding that title vii proscribes racial discrimination against whites upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites holding white tenants of apartment complex have standing to sue for landlords discrimination against nonwhites under wording and legislative history of title viii of the civil rights act of 1968