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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT