IBJNews

Supreme Court to review rules for supervisor in job-bias suits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court will settle a dispute about who can be considered a workplace supervisor for purposes of a federal job-discrimination lawsuit.

The justices on Monday agreed to consider an appeal by a black Ball State University catering worker, whose discrimination claim against the school was thrown out after a federal appeals court said her alleged harasser didn’t qualify as a supervisor. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can be held liable if a supervisor discriminates against an employee based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Maetta Vance sued Ball State, alleging that a co-worker in the Muncie university’s banquet and catering department -- described as a salaried employee who functioned as a supervisor -- had slapped her, threatened her and referred to her using racial epithets.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ball State couldn’t be held liable because the co-worker didn’t qualify as a supervisor. To be a supervisor, the appeals court said, a co-worker must have the authority to “directly affect the terms and conditions” of employment, such as having the power to hire, fire, demote, or transfer employees.

In her Supreme Court appeal, Vance says the Chicago court’s ruling conflicts with standards used by other federal appeals courts and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which say that a supervisor is someone with authority to direct an employee’s daily work activities.

The Obama administration filed a brief agreeing with Vance’s argument that the 7th Circuit’s legal definition of supervisor conflicts with standards used by the EEOC and some other courts in job-discrimination cases. The Justice Department, however, urged the court to deny Vance’s appeal, saying the co-worker in her specific case wouldn’t qualify as a supervisory employee under even the EEOC’s description.

The justices will review the case in the term that begins in October.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Wow that's bad law
    The 7th Circuit shows how far out of touch with reality it is. Have any of those clowns ever had a real job?

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT