Employer responsibility for harassment
Vance v. Ball State University
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit: an employee counts as a supervisor under Title VII only if the employer empowered that person to take significant job actions against the victim.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 24, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Maetta Vance accused a Ball State coworker of racial harassment.
- Who it affects
- For Title VII harassment claims, only workers empowered by their employer to take significant job actions against the person harassed count as supervisors for employer-responsibility purposes.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit (affirmed) and ruled that, under Title VII, a “supervisor” must be empowered by the employer to take significant job actions against the victim, such as hiring, firing, or reassignment.
The dispute arose from Title VII's rules for when employers can be held responsible for workplace harassment by a supervisor.
Question presented
Can a coworker who is vested with the authority to oversee the daily work of another worker be considered a supervisor for the purpose of determining employer liability for harassment?
What the Court decided
Holding
An employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim. 646 F. 3d 461, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“In Faragher v. Boca Raton , 524 U. S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth , 524 U. S. 742 (1998), this Court held that an employer can be vicariously liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for harassment by an employee given supervisory authority over subordinates.”
What's next
The Supreme Court's review is complete, and the Seventh Circuit's judgment remains in place. Lower courts use the Court's definition when deciding whether a worker is a supervisor under Title VII.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Vance
Opinion added: Vance
More questions
- What did Justice Thomas think of the Court's earlier harassment cases?
- He said he continued to believe those earlier cases were wrongly decided.
- Why did Justice Thomas sign on to the Court's opinion?
- He said it offered the narrowest and most workable rule for deciding when an employer may be held responsible for harassment.
- What did Justice Ginsburg say the EEOC guidance counted as supervisory authority?
- She said it covered people authorized to make or recommend job decisions, as well as people authorized to direct another worker's daily tasks.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.