Supreme Court: When is an employer liable for harassment?

Maetta Vance started working in Ball State University's Banquet and Catering Department in 1989, and for much of that time, she was the sole African-American employee in that division. She was also, her coworkers have corroborated, subjected to race-based harassment by others working there.

Vance ultimately sued the university and took her case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices today considered whether Ball State is liable for the harassment Vance faced. Their decision hinges on whether the primary harasser, a "catering specialist" named Saundra Davis, should be considered Vance's "supervisor."

The court's decision could set new guidelines for interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans employers -- or their "agents," such as supervisors -- from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The question of who counts as a "supervisor" comes as the number of workplace harassment charges filed continues to grow -- setting up high stakes for both workers and the businesses responsible for them.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a business is automatically liable if a supervisor harasses a subordinate. If the harassment takes place between two co-workers, the company may still be liable, but it's not automatically responsible.

Federal appeals courts, however, disagree over who counts as a "supervisor." When Vance took her case to court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw it out, arguing that a supervisor must have the ability to hire and fire subordinates -- authority that Davis didn't have. Other federal courts have used a broader definition of "supervisor" that includes the supervision of daily work activities.

Vance's attorney David Ortiz asked the Supreme Court today to reverse the Seventh Circuit decision and send the case back to the lower courts for further review. While Davis could not fire Vance, she still oversaw Vance's daily routine as a catering assistant, he pointed out. In a brief filed with the court, Ortiz called the Seventh Circuit's narrow definition of supervisor "nonsensical" and "arbitrary."

In the courtroom today, however, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts made the case that applying a broader definition would be arbitrary. "I would have thought the benefit of the Seventh Circuit's test was that you don't have to go through those case-by-case basis," he said.

Meanwhile, other justices questioned whether there was enough evidence -- under any standard -- to call Davis a "supervisor."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[marychgo]

The university -- and the pro-university amicus filers and the justices themselves -- seem to be chopping both logic and language in their effort to protect employers from the broad liability employers SHOULD bear. The plain meaning of the word "supervisor" is "person who supervises." That plain meaning obviously includes BOTH the person who has the authority to hire and fire the employee AND the person(s) who directs the employee's day-to-day activities. BOTH are acting as the employer's agent, and the employer is therefore vicariously liable if EITHER harasses the employee.

[lawyertom1]

It is just such circumstances that support the concept of a "hostile work environment." If the employer is aware or made aware that workers are hassling other workers re race etc., then the firm should be liable. If a supervisor, broadly defined, is also aware and does nothing, then the employer should be liable. The goal is to not permit this sort of loutish behavior to occur.

[marychgo]

I think they're arguing a narrower issue, LawyerTom: vicarious liability, rather than hostile workplace.

[nojoy01]

The true test of whether or not someone is a supervisor is not "does this person have to power to fire you" but rather "could you be disciplined or fired for not doing what this person instructs you to do while you are on the job". Lots of "supervisors" do not have the authority/ability to fire you "on their own hook" as it were. BUT, if you don't do what they tell you to do, they can GET you fired, or diciplined. Also, quite simply, if the harasser (is there such a word?;) was placed in charge of her fellow workers to get the job done then she was, indeed, a supervisor.

[micmac666]

This is one of many areas where the Human Resources department, though not mentioned, functions to deflect responsibility for the supervisor and the employer. Don't ever expect HR to look out for the employee's best interest.