ILNews

SCOTUS to hear Ball State discrimination complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A food service worker at Ball State University who claims that the college bears responsibility for racial discrimination by coworkers will have her case heard this month by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Maetta Vance claims she was the only African-American working in her department on the Muncie campus when some co-workers used racial epithets toward her and boasted of ties to the Ku Klux Klan, among other allegations. Her appeal alleges a hostile work environment and retaliation after she filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2006, and subsequently was issued a right-to-sue letter.

Justices in June granted certiorari in Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, 08-3568. The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a district court ruling in favor of Ball State. The 7th Circuit held that Vance “has not established a basis for employer liability on the hostile work environment claim or put forth sufficient facts to support her retaliation claim.”

The question before the court is whether the supervisor liability rule applies to harassment by people whom the employer authorizes to direct or oversee the victim’s daily work. Decisions from the 2nd, 4th and 9th Circuits have upheld that interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The 1st, 7th and 8th Circuits, meanwhile, have held that such claims are limited to those who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline” the victim.

Oral argument is set for Tuesday, Nov. 26.
 
 

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT