Maetta Vance was working at Ball State University when she was harassed by another employee who Vance alleged had the authority to tell her what to do and how to clock her hours. After filing repeated complaints, Vance sued the university for violating Title VII. The university argued that it could not be held liable because Vance’s harasser did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline her. Lower courts agreed. Vance appealed to the Supreme Court. [ Announcement of Friend of Court Brief filed by National Partnership For Women & Families ]
So, the question before the Supreme Court this Monday is whether or not the definition of supervisor in harassment cases should be limited to only those managers with the authority to hire and fire or discipline an employee. According to Sarah Crawford, the director of Workplace Fairness, “the Court’s decision will have important ramifications for the ability of victims of supervisor harassment to hold their employers accountable…The case is a chance for the Court to affirm a standard that furthers the purposes of Title VII – to root out harassment and make clear that employers will be held accountable when supervisors violate the law. A contrary ruling will have grave consequences for victims of harassment and the rights guaranteed by our nation’s equal employment opportunity laws. “
Scotus Blog gives background to the case: “The case of the Ball State University kitchen employee, Maetta Vance, goes back to about 2001. She had been on the job for about ten years, working in the university’s dining and catering department — the only African American in that department. She gained several promotions, and some modest pay raises. But, beginning in 2001, she would later say, her co-workers harassed her with repeated racial epithets and, at times, threatening words or actions. One staff member whom she regarded as a supervisor, William Kimes, allegedly treated other workers more favorably than her and constantly gave Vance the “cold shoulder.”Another worker whom she also regarded as a supervisor, Saundra Davis, allegedly slapped Vance at one point, used racial epithets including references to the Ku Klux Klan, and physically accosted Vance in an elevator. After Vance complained, her employer took some action, warning other workers and trying to sort out what had actually happened in the kitchen. The management did make it clear that racial harassment would not be tolerated in that department… Ball State University’s brief on the merits basically hews closely to the argument that Vance had not made out a case that anyone she challenged was a supervisor, no matter what definition is given to that term. “
Here’s a Reuter’s article with full details:
(Reuters/ Nov 23, 2012) – The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a case that could determine when a company is liable for harassment by its employees.
The case turns on the definition of a single word – “supervisor” – under a federal civil rights law that prohibits racial, religious or sexual harassment in the workplace.
Under previous Supreme Court rulings, an employer is automatically responsible if a supervisor harasses a subordinate. The employer is not liable if the harassment is between two equal coworkers, unless it was negligent in allowing the abuse.
Since those rulings, a rift has developed between federal appeals courts over exactly who is a supervisor. On one side, three circuits say supervisors are those with the power to hire, fire, demote, promote or discipline. Three other circuits have adopted a broader standard, one that also includes employees who direct and oversee a colleague’s daily work.
In the current case, Maetta Vance was the sole black catering worker at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. After filing numerous complaints with the university over racially charged incidents at work, she sued the university in federal court in 2006. She claimed that several white coworkers used racial epithets, references to the Ku Klux Klan and veiled physical threats against her.
In trying to hold Ball State liable, Vance’s lawyers argued that one coworker, Saundra Davis, was a supervisor because she had the power to direct her day-to-day activities. Davis did not have to record her time, like other hourly employees, Vance argued. But the district court dismissed the case before a trial, finding Davis lacked sufficient authority over Vance. It also found that Ball State had taken corrective action and had not acted negligently.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, reached the same conclusion, reasoning that Davis did not have the power to change Vance’s employment status, and therefore the university was not liable for Davis’s conduct.
Vance petitioned the Supreme Court.
Before deciding whether to hear the case, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department for the government’s position, as it does in some cases. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli agreed with Vance that the 7th Circuit’s narrow interpretation was wrong, but also argued that this wasn’t the best case to decide the issue, given what it saw as weak facts that Davis was Vance’s supervisor. Vance presented no evidence of tasks or instructions Davis gave her and even said she was uncertain whether Davis was her supervisor, the government’s brief said.
The Supreme Court accepted the case anyway.
Ball State has made the same argument as the government. Davis “would fail to qualify as Ms. Vance’s supervisor even under the broader interpretation of that term applied by certain courts of appeals,” university spokesman Tony Proudfoot said in an email, citing the Solicitor General’s brief.
But Daniel Ortiz, a lawyer for Vance, said that under the broader standard there is evidence Davis was a supervisor.
Davis, who Vance believed was her supervisor, “taunted her with racial epithets, slapped her at one point and made her life a living hell,” Ortiz said.
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, have filed briefs supporting the narrow definition of supervisor used by the 7th, 1st and 8th Circuits.
Adopting the narrower definition allows employers to easily identify employees who would trigger automatic liability so they can be screened, trained and monitored, the business groups argue.
The open-ended definition, used by the 2nd, 4th and 9th Circuits, offers little guidance or incentive to undertake prevention efforts, the U.S. Chamber said in its brief.
Camille Olson, a lawyer at Seyfarth Shaw who represents companies, said if the Supreme Court adopts the more expansive definition, employers will be potentially liable for the conduct of a much larger pool of employees.
“The expanded definition of whose conduct binds the employer will significantly increase litigation for employers,” said Olson, who is not involved in the latest case. Employees may also have less incentive to report harassment promptly and to get any immediate issues fixed, opting instead for litigation, she said.
On the other side, plaintiffs’ lawyers say the stricter standard ignores the practical reality of the workplace and allows discrimination and harassment to go unpunished.
“The ones most likely to engage in harassment are the ones who deal with their coworkers day-to-day but may not have the special power to hire, fire, promote or demote,” said Matthew Koski, an attorney with the National Employment Lawyers Association, a group for lawyers who represent workers.
Supervisors who make final employment decisions may be in a different office or a different state, he said.
The case is Vance v. Ball State University, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-556.
(Reporting by Terry Baynes in New York; Editing by Eddie Evans and Prudence Crowther)
- Supreme Court To Consider Workplace Harassment Rules (huffingtonpost.com)
- Supreme Court to Take Up Supervisor Harassment Case (acslaw.org)
- Argument preview: Who is a supervisor? (scotusblog.com)
- Supreme Court rejects worker harassment case (news.terra.com)