Supreme Court Hears Argument In Case Asking, “Who Qualifies As A Supervisor?”


[authors: Pete Land and Gwendolyn Morales]

The United States Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in Vance v. Ball State University, a case which has the potential to drastically expand who qualifies as a “supervisor” for purposes of Title VII harassment suits. This is a critical question for employers because supervisor harassment renders an employer automatically liable unless it can prove it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct such harassment and that the victim unreasonably failed to engage the employer’s protective measures. In contrast, co-worker harassment renders an employer liable only if the employee can prove that the employer was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment.

The Vance case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve a circuit-split regarding the important “supervisor” definition. In some circuits, “supervisor” includes any individual possessing the authority to direct and oversee the harassment victim’s daily work, or any person who the victim subjectively regards as a supervisor. By contrast, the Seventh Circuit in Vance limited the “supervisor” definition to include only individuals with power over the formal status of the harassment victim; i.e., the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline.  Oral argument offered little guidance on how the high court will resolve the split, although the Justices did express some concern with a definition that focuses too heavily upon the victim’s subjective belief, noting that could include someone with authority to control something as trivial as background music in the office.

Should the Court adopt a broad definition of “supervisor,” more employees could file harassment disputes, and such claims would be more costly to defend because a more expansive definition of “supervisor” would demand closer analysis of the specific facts of each case. These concerns are profound for industries lacking clearly defined supervisory roles, such as the university defendant in the Vance case. Employers with large work forces involving multi-layered management could also face new challenges, as employees could assert supervisory harassment claims against a harasser holding a managerial position in an entirely different department based on the employee’s belief that the harasser had sufficient influence over personnel matters within the company to be regarded as a supervisor.     

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected early next year; we will provide further updates and guidance for employers at that time.

More Information

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.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Franczek Radelet P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.