Supreme Court Defines the Term "Supervisor" Under Title VII
Last October 2012, I wrote about the case of Vance v. Ball State University, a Seventh Circuit federal appeals court case that addressed the question of who a "supervisor" is for purposes of employer harassment claims alleged under Title VII.
The question is important because under federal law, when the alleged harasser is a co-worker, the employer will only be liable for the harasser's actions if the employee proves that the employer was negligent. But when the employee is a supervisor who creates a hostile work environment, the employer is liable unless it can prove a defense, for instance, that it had an anti-harassment policy and that the employee who was the victim of the harassment failed to take advantage of such a policy.
The Seventh Circuit in Vance adopted a narrow definition of the term and ruled that a supervisor is someone who has the authority to make tangible decisions about an employee's work conditions, including hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, transferring and disciplining. To contrast this definition, the Second Circuit federal court in New York, defines a supervisor less restrictively as anyone who simply has authority to direct the employee's daily work activities.
Vance was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's decision was handed down this past June 24, 2013. In a 5-4 majority opinion the Supreme Court has sided with the Seventh Circuit and ruled that a "supervisor" is someone with the authority to effect significant change in an employee's employment status or has the ability to cause a significant change in benefits. If such a person is responsible for the harassment, then the employer may be liable, but the harasser's mere ability to direct or supervise another employee's work is not enough to hold the employer vicariously liable.
The Supreme Court's decision, at the same time, explicitly rejects the EEOC's broad definition of the term supervisor.
No doubt the decision will have a significant impact on employee harassment lawsuits going forward; giving employers a decided advantage in this area.
The question is important because under federal law, when the alleged harasser is a co-worker, the employer will only be liable for the harasser's actions if the employee proves that the employer was negligent. But when the employee is a supervisor who creates a hostile work environment, the employer is liable unless it can prove a defense, for instance, that it had an anti-harassment policy and that the employee who was the victim of the harassment failed to take advantage of such a policy.
The Seventh Circuit in Vance adopted a narrow definition of the term and ruled that a supervisor is someone who has the authority to make tangible decisions about an employee's work conditions, including hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, transferring and disciplining. To contrast this definition, the Second Circuit federal court in New York, defines a supervisor less restrictively as anyone who simply has authority to direct the employee's daily work activities.
Vance was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's decision was handed down this past June 24, 2013. In a 5-4 majority opinion the Supreme Court has sided with the Seventh Circuit and ruled that a "supervisor" is someone with the authority to effect significant change in an employee's employment status or has the ability to cause a significant change in benefits. If such a person is responsible for the harassment, then the employer may be liable, but the harasser's mere ability to direct or supervise another employee's work is not enough to hold the employer vicariously liable.
The Supreme Court's decision, at the same time, explicitly rejects the EEOC's broad definition of the term supervisor.
No doubt the decision will have a significant impact on employee harassment lawsuits going forward; giving employers a decided advantage in this area.
