Supreme Court Will Review Supervisor Definition Under Title VII

09 July 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in the case of Vance v. Ball State University, Case No. 11-556. The issue in Vance is whether an employee who directs the work of other employees, but who does not have the authority of a traditional supervisor, can still be considered a “supervisor” under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964. There is currently a split among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals on the issue of whether an employee who has the authority to direct the work of other employees is a supervisor under Title VII, even if he or she does not have the authority to make or suggest “tangible” employment actions such as to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline other employees. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Vance held that such an employee is not a supervisor, as have the First and Eighth Circuits. The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held that supervisory status under Title VII is established if an employee merely has the authority to direct and oversee the work of others, like a lead person would. The EEOC, not surprisingly, shares the latter view. See Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors.

The resolution of this issue will be important to all employers who are covered by Title VII and similar anti-discrimination laws. If an alleged harasser is a supervisor, then the employer is considered liable for the harasser’s illegal actions. In that situation, the employer’s only defense would be that it had effective non-harassment policies and procedures in place, but the harassed employee unreasonably failed to follow them to stop the harassment. However, if the alleged harasser is a co-worker and not a supervisor under Title VII, then the employer can be found liable only for the co-worker’s harassment if it failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment. We will keep you posted as to future developments on this important issue.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA