On June 24, 2013, a divided U.S. Supreme Court issued much-anticipated decisions in two Title VII cases in which the Court provided some needed certainty and relief to employers on the front lines of employment litigation. In one case, the Court clarified who may be considered a “supervisor” of an employee for purposes of vicarious liability, and, in another case, it raised the ante for plaintiffs’ burden of proof for retaliation claims.
Victory No. 1: Employee must have power to hire, fire, and discipline to be a “supervisor.”
In Vance v. Ball State University, the Court narrowly defined “supervisor” in the context of Title VII discrimination cases to include only those employees who are empowered to take “tangible employment actions,” thereby shielding employers from liability for discriminatory behavior of mere co-workers.
Please see full alert below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: But For Causation, EEOC, Harassment, Nassar, Retaliation, SCOTUS, Supervisors, Title VII, UT Southwestern Medical v Nassar, Vance v. Ball State University, Vicarious Liability
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Labor & Employment Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP | Attorney Advertising