On June 24th, the Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which makes it more difficult for employees to sue their employers over workplace harassment. The employee in the case, Maette Vance, an African-American woman, claimed she was harassed on the basis of race by a co-worker she viewed as a supervisor. Vance claimed that the alleged harasser had authority to direct her work responsibilities, but provided no evidence that the alleged harasser had the authority to take “tangible job actions”, such as firing or disciplining Vance.
The Court determined to narrow the definition of “supervisor” in the workplace, making it so that supervisor means only those with the authority to make “tangible decisions”. A tangible employment decision requires an official act of the enterprise. Additionally, in most cases, the decision is documented in official company records and subject to review by higher level supervisors. This new definition of “supervisor” is significant since Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it easier to hold a company accountable for workplace harassment if the harasser is considered a supervisor. However, if the alleged harasser is simply a co-worker, the company can defend itself just by proving it was not negligent in dealing with any complaints.
The decision strikes a large blow to workers’ rights. As noted in Ginsburg’s dissent, those employees who control the day-to-day schedules and assignments of other employees will not be included within the very narrow definition of “supervisor”. Thus, the court omits a large portion of the work force from the scope of Title VII.
Nonetheless, the decision does offer much needed clarification in an area of the law that has been vague for far too long. Now potential litigants will be able to more accurately determine whether an alleged harasser was a supervisor and, therefore, appraise the strength of their case before initiating costly litigation.
In sum, an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment under Title VII only when the employer has empowered the employee to take “tangible employment actions” against the victim. Therefore, it is vital for employers to review their employees’ job descriptions and to clarify their scope of duties and responsibilities as to avoid unnecessary liability.
This post was authored by Roger Leshinsky, Law Clerk.
