Who is a "Supervisor"

    In the recent Vance v. Ball State University decision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a new definition of "Supervisor" under Title VII.  Now, an employee is a "supervisor" only if he/she is empowered by the employer to take "tangible employment actions" against the victim.  The Vance decision overrules lower court decisions and the EEOC, which had previously ruled that an individual is a "supervisor" if that individual merely directs the daily activities of another employee.

     Based on prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent, an employer was considered strictly liable if the supervisor's harassment culminated in "tangible employment actions."  Such actions included "a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits."  See Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).  If no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may escape liability if it can demonstrate two things:

1. it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and
2. the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.

     This new ruling is very important.  For one, it is pro-employer.  The ruling limits the scope of an employer's liability for workplace harassment by limiting the definition of "supervisor."  Also, the new definition of "supervisor" is one that can now be readily applied by employers.

If you believe you were harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, please contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation.