The U.S. Supreme Court, in the matter of Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013), has weighed in on who qualifies as a supervisor of employees in order to assess liability for workplace harassment. The Vance matter fills in the gaps left by the cases of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
In Vance, plaintiff Maetta Vance, a black woman, worked as a substitute server at Ball State University’s (BSU) banquet and catering division of dining services. Over the course of her employment with BSU, Vance lodged numerous complaints of racial discrimination. Her complaints reached a head with her interactions with fellow BSU employee Saundra Davis. Vance alleged that Davis intimidated her by giving her a hard time, glaring at her, slamming pots and pans around her, and smiling at her suspiciously. Most notably for the purposes of the Vance opinion, Vance claimed in her complaint that Davis was her supervisor, which, Vance alleged, would make BSU liable for Davis’ actions in creating a hostile work environment for Vance. The case turns on whether Davis can be legally defined as a supervisor or as a fellow employee in order to hold BSU liable.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
