ILNews

SCOTUS rules in favor of Ball State in hostile work environment suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a 5-4 decision Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that a woman failed to prove she was subject to a hostile work environment at Ball State University.

The Supreme Court took the case, Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al., 11-556, last June and heard arguments in November. Maetta Vance, an African-American, worked in the school’s dining services department and alleged that co-worker Saundra Davis created a hostile work environment. She filed her lawsuit against Ball State claiming a violation of Title VII.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Ball State, which the 7th Circuit upheld. The federal court held the school wasn’t vicariously liable for Davis’ alleged actions because Davis, who couldn’t take tangible employment actions against Vance, wasn’t a supervisor.

“We hold that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect 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,’” the majority decided in a decision delivered by Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

“We reject the nebulous definition of a ‘supervisor’ advocated in the (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission) Guidance and substantially adopted by several courts of appeals. Petitioner’s reliance on colloquial uses of the term ‘supervisor’ is misplaced, and her contention that our cases require the EEOC’s abstract definition is simply wrong.”

This case addressed an issue left open by Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 I.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), as to who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a case in which an employee asserts a Title VII claim for workplace harassment.

After those cases were decided, the EEOC in 1999 determined a supervisor is an individual authorized to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions, including hiring and firing of an employee, or an individual authorized to direct the employee’s daily work activities.

Because there is no evidence that Ball State empowered Davis to take any tangible employment actions against Vance, the majority affirmed the 7th Circuit.

Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented over the majority’s decision to strike from the EEOC’s guidance as to who qualifies as a supervisor employees who control the day-to-day schedules and assignments of others, limiting it to only those who are empowered to take tangible employee actions.

Ginsburg, writing the dissent, would continue to follow the EEOC’s 1999 guidance and hold the authority to direct an employee’s daily activities establishes supervisory status under Title VII.  

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority, noting he continues to believe Ellerth and Faragher were wrongly decided, and that Monday’s decision provides the narrowest and most workable rule for when an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s harassment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT