IBJNews

Supreme Court ponders definition of work supervisor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When does your co-worker also count as your supervisor? The Supreme Court may make a final decision on whether to draw a legal line between work colleagues and work managers, at least when it comes to harassment and retaliation claims.

At issue during oral arguments Monday was a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared that only a person with the ability to fire or hire employees can be considered a supervisor, regardless of the person's other duties. But other federal appeals courts — and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — have a broader test, saying a person can be a supervisor if they have the authority to direct daily work activities and can undertake or recommend "tangible employment decision affecting employees."

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Maetta Vance, who was a catering specialist at Ball State University. She accused a co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005, and sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis' actions. The 7th Circuit upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.

Antidiscrimination law prohibits creation of a hostile work environment, and supervisors are held to a higher standard than co-workers since they are in a position of authority over other employees. If the 7th Circuit decision is upheld, advocates say, it will become more difficult for employees to hold employers liable for harassment on the job.

But Justice Elena Kagan, former professor and then dean of Harvard Law School, made clear that she didn't agree with the lower court's definition. "I don't even understand the 7th Circuit's test," Kagan said.

Say, Kagan asked, a secretary for a college professor is being subjected to "living hell" by the professor. Would the secretary, who is hired not by the professor personally but the university's secretarial services, be able to sue the university under the supervisory rules under the 7th Circuit decision? she asked.

"The professor does not apply as a supervisor," answered Sri Srinivasan, a deputy solicitor general.

But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito didn't seem a fan of the EEOC's definition of supervisor when it comes to harassment claims, with the chief justice saying that the 7th Circuit decision at least made it clear who can or cannot sue. What if, Roberts said, a senior employee gets to pick the music that employees have to listen to at work and says to a junior employee, "If you don't date me, it's going to be country music all day long."

Or "hard rock," added Justice Antonin Scalia, to chuckles from the courtroom.

The choice of music affects an employee's daily work, Roberts said, as would other privileges given to senior employees. At least with the 7th Circuit's rule, "you don't have to go through case-by-case," Roberts said.

In an unusual move, lawyers for Vance, the federal government and Ball State University all agreed that the 7th Circuit got it wrong, saying the definition of "supervisor" should be broader than what the appeals court had ruled. The 7th Circuit's "rule does not well fit the reality of the workplace," said Daniel R. Ortiz, Vance's lawyer.

"There's broad agreement on what the standard should be," said Gregory G. Garre, lawyer for Ball State University, who argued that even though the definition should be broader, Davis still would not be considered a supervisor.

Their agreement seemed to frustrate some of the justices because they expected to hear an argument over what the lower court did, not an agreement that it was wrong. "There's no one here defending the 7th Circuit," Scalia said at one point.

The justices are expected to make a decision sometime next year.

Several groups have filed amicus briefs because of its possible impact on human resources, including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the American Council of Education, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the Equal Employment Advisory Council.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law associate professor Deborah Widiss said the question of who "counts" as a supervisor for purposes of racial and sexual harassment is extremely important for workers across the country. She said in a statement released by the law school that some courts' definitions of "supervisor" in anti-discrimination law doesn't match the reality of today's workplace.

"The lower courts in Vance held that only individuals who had authority to make formal personnel decisions, such as hiring, promotion or termination, should be considered 'supervisors,'" she said. "However, employees often have minimal contact with the people who make those formal decisions, but they interact every day with intermediate supervisors, such as shift workers. And these intermediate supervisors are often the ones who are best positioned to create a hostile work environment."

Widiss hopes that the justices will broaden the definition of "supervisor" to include employees who control other employees' daily work or who can use their authority to facilitate harassment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT