Vance v. Ball State University

Vance v. Ball State University

Argued November 26, 2012
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case name Vance v. Ball State University
Citations

570 U.S. ___ (more)

Prior history United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Holding
An employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas
Concurrence Thomas
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer
Laws applied
Title VII

Vance v. Ball State University is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in an 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor.[1] The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.[2][3][4]

The issue presented before the Court was:

Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth "supervisor" liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or, as

the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim.

— Questions presented, Vance v. Ball State University[3]

Background

While working at Ball State University, Maetta Vance contended that Saundra Davis, a catering specialist, had made Vance’s life at work unpleasant through physical acts and racial harassment. Vance sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor.

To win a lawsuit for harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is necessary to show that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment. However, to win a lawsuit for harassment by a supervisor, the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor’s acts to the employer. Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite.

The District Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that Davis was not Vance’s supervisor, because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of her employment.[5]

Supreme Court decision

The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. It used a narrow interpretation of the term "supervisor", so that a person may only be considered a supervisor if he or she can take tangible action against the employee.[6]

Reaction

Four bloggers on the progressive Daily Kos website criticized the opinion.[7]

See also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
  2. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (November 26, 2012). "Supreme Court To Look At Who Is A 'Supervisor' In Harassment Cases". National Public Radio. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  3. 1 2 "11-556 Vance v. Ball State University, et al. Question Presented:Harassment Cases" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 25, 2012. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  4. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (November 21, 2012). "Argument preview: Who is a supervisor?". ScotusBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  5. ↑ Vance v. Ball State Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  6. ↑ Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11–556. Decided June 24, 2013. Cornell Law School website. Accessed June 25, 2013.
  7. ↑ See Justices Alito and Kennedy Mansplain Away Your Rights, Abbreviated pundit roundup: SCOTUS decisions deconstructed, Overnight News Digest: A Supreme edition, and Supremes screw workers, yet again (2x). All retrieved June 25, 2013.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.