» Subscribe Today!
More of what you want to know.
The Daily News
X

Forgot your password?
Skip Navigation LinksHome >
VOL. 127 | NO. 231 | Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Supreme Court: Who Counts as a Supervisor?

JESSE J. HOLLAND | Associated Press

Print | Front Page | Email this story | Comments ()

WASHINGTON (AP) – When does your coworker 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 Seventh 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 Seventh 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 Seventh 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 Seventh 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 Seventh 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 Seventh 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 Seventh Circuit got it wrong, saying the definition of "supervisor" should be broader than what the appeals court had ruled. The Seventh 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 Seventh Circuit," Scalia said at one point.

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

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sign-Up For Our Free Email Edition
Get the news first with our daily email


 
Blog Get more from The Daily News
Blog News, Training & Events
RECORD TOTALS DAY WEEK YEAR
PROPERTY SALES 110 154 13,810
MORTGAGES 135 193 18,019
FORECLOSURE NOTICES 15 39 3,544
BUILDING PERMITS 430 430 32,733
BANKRUPTCIES 52 130 13,133
BUSINESS LICENSES 20 45 4,750
UTILITY CONNECTIONS 83 204 20,104
MARRIAGE LICENSES 0 33 4,230

Weekly Edition

Issues | About

The Memphis News: Business, politics, and the public interest.