Employer liability for harassment in the workplace is before the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vance v. Ball State University. At issue is the scope of the “Supervisor” Liability Rule in discrimination cases under Title VII. This is a long awaited case on who qualifies as a “supervisor” for purposes of establishing employer liability in the workplace context.
The determination of whether there is a basis for employer liability under Title VII depends on whether the harasser is a supervisor or a co-worker. In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), the Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable under Title VII for severe or pervasive harassment of an employee by a supervisor. This Supervisor Liability Rule applies even if the employer is unaware of the discrimination. On the other hand, if the employee’s harasser is a co-employee, the employer is not liable unless the employer was negligent in allowing the conduct.
In Vance, an African-American server in the Banquet & Catering Department at Ball State University complained that she was continually harassed at work due to her race by her co-workers. One of those co-workers oversaw and directed plaintiff’s daily work but did not have the power to hire or fire plaintiff. In upholding summary judgment for the employer, the Seventh Circuit held that harassment by an employee who was considered a supervisor by the employer because of the authority to direct and oversee the plaintiff’s daily work was not sufficient to make the employer strictly liable because the harasser did not have the power to take formal employment actions against the plaintiff.
Vance will decide a split in the Circuit Courts since Faragher and Ellerth. The First, Seventh, and Eight Circuits limit the scope of “supervisor” liability to those harassers who have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline the victim. The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits expand liability to include harassment by those with oversight authority in the workplace generally.
A decision is expected before the end of the term in June 2013. If the Supreme Court holds a “supervisor” includes the broader category of employees with authority to direct and oversee another employee’s daily work, employers could see an increase in claims of discrimination for hostile work environment. Employers should continue to implement anti-harassment training for all employees, including those with any supervisor or managerial job duties.