What is expected of employers to defend harassment charges has been clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vance v. Ball State. The Court considered and rejected the EEOC’s broad definition of “supervisor” for purposes of establishing an employer’s liability for workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Facts of the Case
Under existing precedent, an employer’s liability for harassment is influenced by the status of the harasser. For example, if the alleged harasser is a co-worker of the victim, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. If the harasser is a “supervisor,” the employer’s potential for liability increases.
If the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as demotion, termination or failure to promote, the employer will be strictly liable for such tangible employment action. However, if no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may avoid liability by establishing that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.
In the most recent case, plaintiff Maetta Vance, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Ball State University (BSU). She alleged that a fellow employee, Saundra Davis, created a racially hostile work environment. The lower court held that BSU was not vicariously liable for Davis’ alleged actions since she could not take tangible employment actions against Vance and was not a supervisor. Thus, the question before the Court on appeal was who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a case in which an employee asserts a Title VII claim for workplace harassment.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Vance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that a very broad definition of supervisor should apply. They would have defined supervisors to include all those who exercise “significant oversight” over an employee’s daily work.
Instead, the Court by a 5-4 majority held that 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.
“An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect 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,'” Justice Samuel Alito explained.
While the decision provides employers with protection from vicarious liability, the attempt of plaintiffs and the EEOC to push the barriers of liability will continue. It is important to highlight that the decision does not remove all vicarious liability for co-worker harassment. Further, companies may still face negligent supervision claims under Title VII.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court Sides With Employers on Harassment Claim
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
What is expected of employers to defend harassment charges has been clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vance v. Ball State. The Court considered and rejected the EEOC’s broad definition of “supervisor” for purposes of establishing an employer’s liability for workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Facts of the Case
Under existing precedent, an employer’s liability for harassment is influenced by the status of the harasser. For example, if the alleged harasser is a co-worker of the victim, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. If the harasser is a “supervisor,” the employer’s potential for liability increases.
If the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as demotion, termination or failure to promote, the employer will be strictly liable for such tangible employment action. However, if no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may avoid liability by establishing that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.
In the most recent case, plaintiff Maetta Vance, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Ball State University (BSU). She alleged that a fellow employee, Saundra Davis, created a racially hostile work environment. The lower court held that BSU was not vicariously liable for Davis’ alleged actions since she could not take tangible employment actions against Vance and was not a supervisor. Thus, the question before the Court on appeal was who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a case in which an employee asserts a Title VII claim for workplace harassment.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Vance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that a very broad definition of supervisor should apply. They would have defined supervisors to include all those who exercise “significant oversight” over an employee’s daily work.
Instead, the Court by a 5-4 majority held that 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.
“An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect 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,'” Justice Samuel Alito explained.
While the decision provides employers with protection from vicarious liability, the attempt of plaintiffs and the EEOC to push the barriers of liability will continue. It is important to highlight that the decision does not remove all vicarious liability for co-worker harassment. Further, companies may still face negligent supervision claims under Title VII.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
