Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

High court limits employer liability in alleged supervisor harassment

Reprints
High court limits employer liability in alleged supervisor harassment

In a victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday narrowed the definition of supervisor for purposes of discrimination cases.

In a 5-4 ruling in Mayetta Vance v. Ball State University et al., the court held that an employee is a supervisor for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if he or she has the power to make “tangible” employment actions against the victim, such as hiring or firing.

The case involved the food service worker's allegations that she was the victim of racially based harassment by someone Ms. Vance identified as a supervisor, and of retaliation for her complaints about the harassment.

The ruling affirmed a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

However, if the harassing employee is a co-worker of the victim, the employer may be held liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions, according to the high court.

“Under the definition of 'supervisor' that we adopt today, the question of supervisor status, when contested, can very often be resolved as matter of law before trial,” the majority held. “The elimination of this issue from the trial will focus the efforts of the parties, who will be able to present their cases in a way that conforms to the framework that the jury will apply.”

“It's a good decision for employers” and “should provide some bright line rules in those jurisdictions that aren't already required to follow that particular test,” said Steve A. Miller, a partner with law firm Fisher & Phillips L.L.P. in Chicago, who was not involved in the case.