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."
"Mr. Ortiz, suppose I agree with your standard, but I just can't find on the record as it has been presented in this Court any evidence that Davis actually served as Vance's supervisor," Justice Elena Kagan said. Under that scenario, Kagan said she would be inclined to just decide the case rather than send it back to the lower courts, as Ortiz advised.
The attorney for Ball State University did not defend the Seventh Circuit's narrow definition of "supervisor." He only made the case that Davis was clearly not a supervisor, under any definition.
"In essence, did the person treat the alleged harasser like a co-employee, or did the person treat the alleged harasser like a supervisor? And in this case, the record is clear that she treated her like a co-employee," argued attorney Gregory Garre.
Garre said the court should affirm the lower court's decision to throw out Vance's case while adopting a broader definition of "supervisor" that has defined limits. "The best way to make clear that there are limits is to make clear that on the record in this case Ms. Davis did not qualify as a supervisor," he said.
Though Ball State didn't defend the narrow definition of "supervisor," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in the case to do just that.
"Employers that can readily identify the 'supervisors' who might trigger automatic liability have more incentive to screen, train and monitor those employees, and to do so effectively," the Chamber argued. By contrast, a broader definition of supervisor "makes it more difficult for employers to engage in preventive 'forethought.'"
The Chamber noted that its members devote "extensive resources" to developing business practices and programs to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Other organizations, like the National Retail Federation and the National Federation of Independent Business, also filed briefs against Vance's argument.
In support of Vance's argument were groups including AARP and the National Employment Lawyers Association.
The National Partnership for Women & Families submitted a brief in support of Vance, it said, "to highlight the realities of the workplace for employees who experience harassment from an immediate supervisor and to highlight social science research about the serious implications of supervisor harassment for workers and their employers."
The group pointed out over the past decade, the number of harassment charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and other employment agencies has grown by 25 percent.
