In a highly anticipated ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer is a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim” in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013)
Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for harassment may depend upon whether the harasser is a co-worker or a supervisor. In 1998, the Supreme Court held in two cases, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, that an employer is automatically liable under Title VII for harassment by an employer who is a “supervisor.” However, where a co-worker discriminates, an employer is liable only if the victim reported the harassment to her employer and the employer is negligent in remedying the situation.1 Because of a circuit split and this important distinction between a co-worker and a supervisor, the Supreme Court had to clarify the definition of a supervisor.
In Vance, the plaintiff alleged that another employee created a racially hostile work environment. Ball State argued that it was not vicariously liable for the employee’s alleged actions because the employee was not a supervisor. The plaintiff argued that a “supervisor” is anyone with the ability to exercise “significant direction over another’s daily work.” Notably, this definition mirrored the E.E.O.C. Guidance. The employer argued that a “supervisor” must have more power, such as the ability to take a tangible action such as hiring, firing, or promoting the employee.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer and limited the scope of the term “supervisor.” Specifically, the Court held that for purposes of Title VII, a “supervisor,” encompasses only employees who have the ability to effect or take a “tangible employment action.”
Vance is a resounding victory for employers. Not only has the Supreme Court created certainty as to who qualifies as a “supervisor” for Faragher/Ellerth purposes – an important clarification in determining employer’s liability – but it also accepted the employer’s (more restrictive) definition of a supervisor. However, whether this results in the decrease in litigation the Supreme Court hoped for remains to be seen.
Should you have any questions related to Title VII or any other employment matters, please contact one of our Employment Practices Liability Group Members.