Vance v. Ball State University

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

| Litigants = Vance v. Ball State University

| ArgueDate = November 26

| ArgueYear = 2012

| DecideDate = June 24

| DecideYear = 2013

| FullName = Vance v. Ball State University

| USVol = 570

| USPage = 421

| ParallelCitations = 133 S. Ct. 2434; 186 L. Ed. 2d 565; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4703; 81 U.S.L.W. 4553

| Docket = 11-556

| OralArgument =

| OralReargument =

| OpinionAnnouncement =

| Prior = United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

| Subsequent =

| 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.

| Majority = Alito

| JoinMajority = Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

| Concurrence = Thomas

| JoinConcurrence =

| Concurrence2 =

| JoinConcurrence2 =

| Concurrence/Dissent =

| JoinConcurrence/Dissent =

| Dissent = Ginsburg

| JoinDissent = Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

| Dissent2 =

| JoinDissent2 =

| LawsApplied = Title VII

}}

Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor.{{ussc|name=Vance v. Ball State University|volume=570|page=421|pin=|year=2013}}. The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/26/165883697/supreme-court-to-look-at-who-is-a-supervisor-in-harassment-cases?ft=1&f=3|work=National Public Radio|author=Totenberg, Nina|author-link=Nina Totenberg|title=Supreme Court To Look At Who Is A 'Supervisor' In Harassment Cases

|date=November 26, 2012|access-date=November 26, 2012}}{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/11-00556qp.pdf|work=Supreme Court of the United States|title=11-556 Vance v. Ball State University, et al. Question Presented:Harassment Cases|date=June 25, 2012|access-date=November 26, 2012}}{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/26/165883697/supreme-court-to-look-at-who-is-a-supervisor-in-harassment-cases?ft=1&f=3|work=ScotusBlog|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|title=Argument preview: Who is a supervisor?|date=November 21, 2012|access-date=November 26, 2012}}

The issue presented before the Court was:

{{blockquote|Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth "supervisor" liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or, as

the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim.|Questions presented, Vance v. Ball State University}}

Background

While working at Ball State University, Maetta Vance contended that Saundra Davis, a catering specialist, had made Vance’s life at work unpleasant through physical acts and racial harassment. Vance sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor.

To win a lawsuit for harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is necessary to show that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment. However, to win a lawsuit for harassment by a supervisor, the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor’s acts to the employer. Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite.

The District Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that Davis was not Vance’s supervisor, because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of her employment.[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-556 Vance v. Ball State] Legal Information Institute. Retrieved June 25, 2013.

Supreme Court decision

The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. It used a narrow interpretation of the term "supervisor", so that a person may only be considered a supervisor if he or she can take tangible action against the employee.