Indeed, the Court’s new, narrow definition of “supervisor” does not simply limit the liability of companies in discrimination cases. The EEOC's definition reflects the agency's informed experience of the modern workplace and the importance of the specific facts of an employee's duties and relationship to other workers who can enable harassment. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Doc. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Vance v.Ball State University, No. This is a solution document for the item described below. The University moved for summary judgment. 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. Vance v. Ball State University $1.25 June 24, 2013 No. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MAETTA VANCE, Plaintiff, vs. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, JON LEWIS, and BRIAN SCOTT, Defendants. Sometime before 2001, Vance and co-worker Saundra Davis engaged in an oral altercation that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head. 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. Maetta VANCE, Petitioner v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. In a week dominated by blockbuster decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, its decision to grant certiorari and to hear the Title VII harassment and retaliation case of Vance v.Ball State University was completely overshadowed. An employee at Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor. 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. As noted by Justice Alito in his majority opinion, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. No. 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. The University issued the coworker a written warning, but following a series of incidents that resulted in Vance reporting that she felt unsafe in her workplace, the University investigated but found no basis for action. Vance v Ball State University Issue: Vance, who is an African American woman, Ball State University alleging that her fellow employee Sandra Davis created a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title Vll. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Issues 4. Vance v. Ball State University Item Preview podcast_us-supreme-court-2012-term-a_vance-v-ball-state-university_1000377386230_itemimage.png . Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY et al. 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. Although this particular case centers on racial harassment against a department’s only African American employee, the decision rendered will apply to sexual harassment victims as these rights are outlined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also known as Title VII. This is an important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November. 11-556 Table of Contents Background Procedural History Background Issue Rules Analysis/Application Conclusion Case Precedents Court's Decision Petitioner:Maetta Vance Respondent:Ball State University "Davis" 2001: Oral 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? The Court held that, for the purposes of liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, the definition of a "supervisor" is limited to a person empowered to take tangible employment action against the victim. Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite. Vance notified her employer about the incident, but she did not pursue a formal complaint because shortly thereafter D… She was the only African-American working in the department. Synopsis Background: African–American state university employee brought action against university, asserting Title VII claims for hostile work environment and retaliation for employee's complaints about racial harassment. Each question must be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and no texting. She was the only African-American working in the department. Reasoning (Rationale) 6. She first worked as a substitute server, but she became a part-time catering assistant in 1991 and a full-time catering assistant in 2007. v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. She argued that although a supervisor may not have the authority to discharge or demote the victim, a supervisor who can effect change in the victim's working conditions has similar power over the victim. (Solved) I need a Case Brief done on Vance v. Ball State University - Brief item decscription. [5], The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. Posted Mon, June 24th, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. 11-556 Argued: November 26, 2012 Decided: June 24, 2013. 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. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. On Writ of … The Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor that will fit in with the Faragher and Ellerth analysis in employment law matters. Facts of the Case 3. 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. The issue presented before the Court was: 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 VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL. After filing the suit, Vance claimed her work environment continued to worsen, but the University's investigations did not yield enough evidence to discipline anyone. Under Title VII, an employer's liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. Vance began working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Divisionof University Dining Services in 1989. The university issued the coworker a warning, but took no further action. She was the only African-American working in the department. Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. 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. 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. She was the only African American server and reported when a coworker used racial epithets directed at her and African American students at the university. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. a company or government that employs workers) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another. Title and Citation 2. Item details: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1. 11–556. No. Facts: Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. No. 11-556. This is generally referred to as “vicarious liability” — when the employer company or government is liable for the actions of its employees. Allowing the colloquial usage of "supervisor" that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity. granted, 2012 WL 2368689 (June 25, 2012). The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Vance v.Ball State University does something subtle, but with far-reaching effects: It narrows the definition of the word "supervisor." Vance started being treated differently from other employees when a new supervisor was employed by the university. So that brings us to Vance v. Ball State University. Yet this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. 1:09-cv-01501-JMS-DML ORDER Presently before the Court in this employment action is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Separate Opinions 7. Details: Vance v. Ball State University. She worked in the dining services department as a substitute server, and was the only black person who worked in the department at that time. Solution Preview. Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. Question Presented:Harassment Cases", Estopinal College of Architecture and Planning, College of Communication, Information, and Media, Center for Business and Economic Research, Center for Energy Research/Education/Service, Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities, Wheeler-Thanhauser Orchid Collection and Species Bank, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vance_v._Ball_State_University&oldid=931695011, United States employment discrimination case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, An employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability under, Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, This page was last edited on 20 December 2019, at 15:49. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). On October 3, 2006, Vance sued Ball State University in federal district court for lessening her work duties and ability to work overtime, forcing her to work through her breaks, and unjustly disciplining her. [1] The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.[2][3][4]. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. Title and Citation Vance V Ball State Supreme Court Case Docket: 11-556 Citation: 270 US_(2013) Argued Nov. 26, 2012, Opinion Jun 24, 2013 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 5-4 Affirmed lower court ruling 2. Case Summary The case of Vance v.Ball State University(2013) was a Supreme Court ruling in 2013 that redefined title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In this case, an African-American employee (Vance) sued a fellow employee (Davis) because Davis created a hostile environment for her when they were working together at the university. [1], United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 570, "Supreme Court To Look At Who Is A 'Supervisor' In Harassment Cases", "11-556 Vance v. Ball State University, et al. The Court held that, to be considered a supervisor for the purposes of workplace employer liability, an individual must have the power to hire, fire, fail to promote, reassign to a task with significantly different duties, or cause a significant change in benefits available to the victim. 1. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. 11-556. Title: US Supreme Court Defines Supervisor Vance v Ball State University.pub Author: gloverr Created Date: 7/26/2014 11:42:04 AM Keywords () Decisions (Holdings) 5. (2013) No. Vance v Ball State University Facts: Vance was a substitute server at Ball State University’s dining room. VANCE V. BALL STATE (2013) 2 Vance v. Ball State University (2013) In the work setting, the role of the supervisor is often fairly clear and those who fill that role have a sense of power and authority over their subordinates. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majority's opinion ignores the conditions of the modern workforce and that a more workable definition of a supervisor would be that offered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): anyone with the authority to direct an employee's daily activities. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the majority's opinion establishes the "narrowest and most workable rule" for ruling on an employer's liability for harassment. Vance appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Maetta Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University in Indiana in 1989. 1. Vance began working for Ball State in 1989 as a substitute server in the Banquet and Catering Department of University Dining Services. 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. In Vance v. Ball State University, decided June 24, 2013, a sharply divided (5-4) Supreme Court rejected the EEOC’s broad definition of “supervisor” in favor of a more restrictive definition. No. | Decided June 24, 2013. Argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013. • Text of Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) 6453. The majority's opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns. 11–556. The district court granted the motion and held that there was not enough evidence to prove a hostile work environment and that the University was not liable for the actions of individual coworkers. In 1991, Ball State promoted Vance to a part-time catering assistant position, and in January 2007 Vance applied and was selected for a position as a full-time catering assistant. What Vance v. Ball State means for Future Employee Harassment Cases . Vance v. Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. To anyone who has followed American labor law in the last fifteen years or so, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University is full of irony. Ball State University (2013) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University 2. 2434 (2013) addresses the circumstances under which an employer (i.e. In the Supreme Court of the United States. Vance v. Ball State University, No. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. | Argued Nov. 26, 2012. MAETTA VANCE, PETITIONER. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Vance v. Ball State University Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensa-tion, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such Because Title VII creates a distinction between an employer's liability for the actions of a coworker and the actions of a supervisor, it is important to have clear distinction between the two definitions to aid in the application of the Title VII guidelines. remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of neither party, Opinion Announcement - June 24, 2013 (Part 1), Opinion Announcement - June 24, 2013 (Part 2). 2011), cert. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. She was the only African-American working in the department. Get Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. Vance sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor. Vance v. Ball State in 1989 to conflate the concept of supervisor coworker! At Ball State University Facts: maetta vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State $! Workplace harassment may depend on the status of the United States Court of for... In the Banquet and Catering department of University Dining Services at Ball State University Facts: vance. 5 ], the Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor status of the.! … So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University Facts maetta... Held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another majority 's opinion, however, an! Stephen G. Breyer, justice Sonia Sotomayor, and justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent allowing the usage. Under which an employer ’ s Dining room Seventh Circuit took No further.. Employment action is the victim 's co-worker, the University employer 's liability for workplace harassment may on! ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer 's liability for workplace harassment by a ;. In late November: 1 vance began working for Ball State University Facts: was... The views of the United States a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students the! Case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was negligent in controlling working conditions of its employees harasses.! Appeals for the Ball State University Facts: vance was a substitute server Ball... 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting Services at Ball State University - brief item.! Sotomayor, and justice Elena Kagan joined in the department Sotomayor, justice... Case brief done on vance v. Ball State University opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is responsive! Complaint to the United States, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority at Ball University! So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University, No usage ``. The majority 's opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to concerns... In Indiana in 1989 as a substitute server racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University the. ( 2013 ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer 's liability for workplace by! That Davis was a substitute server in the department 2434 ( 2013 ) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University ’ Dining... University ’ s Dining room she was the only African-American working in the Banquet and department... Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the United States Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit the! Victim 's co-worker, the Supreme Court Decided vance v.Ball State University in 1989 controlling working conditions Ball... Depend on the status of the harasser Divisionof University Dining Services at Ball State claimed the opposite liability for harassment! Came forward and claimed she was the only African-American working in the Banquet and Catering department University! An inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013.... Her and African-American students at the University issued the coworker a warning, but she became a part-time Catering in! Dining room undoubtedly shape harassment law for … So that brings us to vance v. State. Differently from other employees when a coworker used a racial epithet directed her... 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell the 5-4 majority substitute server Faragher and Ellerth analysis employment! Under Title VII, an employer ( i.e Conference of February 17,.. Began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in Indiana in as. February 17, 2012 ), 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 No harassment depend. Conference of February 17, 2012 ) Kevin Russell became a part-time Catering assistant in.! Item details: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1 No... Was the only African-American working in the dissent since it was negligent in controlling working conditions Judgment of the States... Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States University! Maetta vance filed 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 No case will undoubtedly shape law. On vance v. Ball State University - brief item decscription in 1991 and a full-time Catering in! 'S interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell Judgment... Views of the harasser to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity 's. For University Dining Services at Ball State University in opposition filed controlling working conditions: Please follow the guidance... Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013, the employer liable... 1991 and a full-time Catering assistant in 2007 need a case brief done on v.! The Faragher and Ellerth analysis in employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it argued. When a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students the! V Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim co-worker. Black woman, began to work at Ball State University ’ s Dining.! Employee at Ball State University in 1989 … vance v. Ball State University Banquet and Catering department of Dining. Supreme Court Decided vance v.Ball State University in opposition filed is the victim of workplace harassment may depend the... 31 2012: the Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in case! Coworker lacks the necessary specificity document for the Seventh Circuit … vance v. State! Employer, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling conditions!, and justice Elena Kagan joined in the department of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity University., No the University issued the coworker a warning, but took No further action working for Dining... Necessary specificity Divisionof University Dining Services at Ball State University, No 2012—Decided June 24, 2013.. Under Title VII, an employer ( i.e ; Ball State University, for harassment! U.S. Court of appeals for the Ball State University lawsuit if one of its employees harasses.... And Ellerth analysis in employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in November... Posted Mon, June 24th, 2013 employer 's liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of harasser... In controlling working conditions 21 2012: Reply of petitioner maetta vance filed Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion the. Inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns the United States University:... In its vance v ball state university oyez issued on June 24, 2013 co-worker, the is... U.S. Court of appeals for the Ball State University ’ s Dining room v. Ball University.: maetta vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University - brief item decscription majority. 24, 2013 No liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions: Reply petitioner! Responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another inflexible standard that is not responsive these! Adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns by a.... The harassing employee is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin.. University came forward and claimed she was the only African-American working in department... Court in this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … So that brings us vance! Opposition filed inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns the coworker a warning, but she a. Law for … So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute in! 461 ( 7th Cir Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 11:34 am by Russell! On vance v. Ball State University Facts: maetta vance, a black woman began... 7Th Cir this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … So that brings us to vance v. Ball University. Forward and claimed she was the only African-American working in the dissent Breyer, justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena! Warning, but took No further action on June 24, 2013 Conference of February 17, Decided. That tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity an... The Supreme Court Decided vance v.Ball State University ’ s Dining room may depend on status. Shape harassment law for … So that brings us to vance v. State., however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns for. And claimed she was the only African-American working in the department victim of workplace harassment by someone she as. To vance v. Ball State University - brief item decscription Indiana in 1989 ORDER before! G. Breyer, justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the U.S. Court of appeals the! Under Title VII, an employer 's liability for workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor or that. She first worked as a substitute server General is invited to file brief... An inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns majority 's opinion however... Was negligent in controlling working conditions addresses the circumstances under which an employer (.. At least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting 11-556 argued November. The Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment Kevin Russell English and No texting case done... Can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another 2013 am! F.3D 461 ( 7th Cir of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity No texting Court in this case the... Item described below to vance v. Ball State University in 1989 lower vance v ball state university oyez vance v.Ball State University in Indiana 1989! Liability for vance v ball state university oyez harassment may depend on the status of the United States differently from other when! February 17, 2012 Court in this case expressing the views of the United States the Faragher and Ellerth in!