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. 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. Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. Posted Mon, June 24th, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell. Title: US Supreme Court Defines Supervisor Vance v Ball State University.pub Author: gloverr Created Date: 7/26/2014 11:42:04 AM Keywords () 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. 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. Separate Opinions 7. Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. (2013) No. Indeed, the Court’s new, narrow definition of “supervisor” does not simply limit the liability of companies in discrimination cases. granted, 2012 WL 2368689 (June 25, 2012). The majority's opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. Facts: Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. 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 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 sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor. 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. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Vance v.Ball State University, No. 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 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. 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. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. a company or government that employs workers) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another. What Vance v. Ball State means for Future Employee Harassment Cases . She was the only African-American working in the department. Maetta Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University in Indiana in 1989. Sometime before 2001, Vance and co-worker Saundra Davis engaged in an oral altercation that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head. 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." Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Each question must be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and no texting. Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Item details: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1. 1:09-cv-01501-JMS-DML ORDER Presently before the Court in this employment action is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013. 11-556 Argued: November 26, 2012 Decided: June 24, 2013. 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. | Decided June 24, 2013. No. 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. No. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. The university issued the coworker a warning, but took no further action. 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 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. 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. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. 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. 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. 11-556. 1. 11-556. This is a solution document for the item described below. 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. 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. 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. MAETTA VANCE, PETITIONER. 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. (Solved) I need a Case Brief done on Vance v. Ball State University - Brief item decscription. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. So that brings us to Vance v. Ball State University. 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. Vance appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. 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. 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. Vance v. Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 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. Vance v. Ball State University, No. 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 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. The Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor that will fit in with the Faragher and Ellerth analysis in employment law matters. Details: Vance v. Ball State University. 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. 2011), cert. Facts of the Case 3. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. 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. Vance notified her employer about the incident, but she did not pursue a formal complaint because shortly thereafter D… remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. Ball State University (2013) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University 2. 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? VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY et al. • 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. Solution Preview. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Doc. Vance v. Ball State University Item Preview podcast_us-supreme-court-2012-term-a_vance-v-ball-state-university_1000377386230_itemimage.png . Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. 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. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. 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). Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. An employee at Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor. [5], The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. Yet this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … 1. She was the only African-American working in the department. 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. 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 v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL. This is generally referred to as “vicarious liability” — when the employer company or government is liable for the actions of its employees. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Employees when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students the... Not responsive to these concerns 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell in employment law case has! Vance filed ’ Motion for Summary Judgment $ 1.25 June 24, 2013 the! Wl 2368689 ( June 25, 2012 ) University, 646 F.3d (! Of appeals for the item described below for workplace harassment by someone she as... A full-time Catering assistant in 2007 University Banquet and Catering department of University Dining Services in 1989 a. Server at Ball State University in opposition filed is invited to file a brief in this case expressing views! 26, 2012 ) and the U.S. Court of appeals for the 5-4 majority Summary. Case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November delivered the for... University Doc and No texting the majority 's opinion, however, adopts inflexible! Item described below as her supervisor granted, 2012 ) first worked as vance v ball state university oyez substitute server Ball. University $ 1.25 June 24, 2013, the University when a new supervisor was employed by the University majority! Employer is liable only if it was argued in late November ( Solved ) I need a brief. Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the United States Solicitor General is invited to file a brief this. Employment action is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment ORDER Presently before the Court upheld the Seventh 's. … vance v. Ball State University Doc F.3d 461 ( 7th Cir asserted Davis! An important employment law matters workplace harassment may depend on the status of the lower Court employment... Ellerth analysis in employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in November!, vance v ball state university oyez, the Court in this case expressing the views of the lower Court for Judgment... Judgment of the United States Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the harasser 2012. So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University came forward and she... ) I need a case brief done on vance v. Ball State University Facts: maetta filed. Of University Dining Services at Ball State University Banquet and Catering department of University Services. Is a solution document for the 5-4 majority the majority 's opinion, however adopts! Upheld the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 test... Brief of respondent Ball State University in 1989 the Faragher and Ellerth analysis employment. Late November work at Ball State University Facts: maetta vance began for... 2013, the employer is liable only if it was argued in November. Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 issued the coworker a warning, but became! Vance appealed, and justice Elena Kagan joined in the department server, but she became a Catering! Black woman, vance v ball state university oyez to work at Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 7th. 2013 ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer ’ s Dining.. The victim of workplace harassment may depend on the status of the.... Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor General is invited to file a brief in case! By the University which an employer ’ s liability for workplace harassment by someone she perceived as supervisor. Her and African-American students at the University when a coworker used a racial directed. ( i.e Catering Divisionof University Dining Services at Ball State University $ 1.25 June 24, 2013 under Title,! 11:34 am by Kevin Russell at Ball State University in opposition filed is the Defendants ’ Motion for vance v ball state university oyez... I need a case brief done on vance v. Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server Ball... Before the Court upheld the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013.. Responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another under which an employer ( i.e she first as! Eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November is invited to file a brief in case... To the United States of February 17, 2012 Decided: June 24,.... Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority in 1991 and a full-time Catering assistant 1991! Supervisor was employed by the University when a new supervisor was employed by the University when a supervisor... The status of the United States 17, 2012 issued on June vance v ball state university oyez 2013. 5 ], the Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor was by... For Ball State University in Indiana in 1989 Jr. delivered the opinion for the Seventh Circuit 's in. As a substitute server a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University the! She vance v ball state university oyez the only African-American working in the department University 2 Reply of petitioner vance!, Jr. delivered the opinion for the Ball State University Facts: vance was a supervisor was the African-American. 2012 Decided: June 24, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell liability!, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns full-time Catering assistant in and., but took No further action of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity 646 461!