Supreme Court Confirms Definition of ‘Supervisor’

The high court said that, under Title VII, a supervisor is someone who can undertake tangible employment decisions that impact employees.

June 26, 2013

ATLANTA – Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Title VII, a supervisor is defined as someone who can undertake or effectively recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the victim, according to Fisher & Phillips LLC. (Vance v. Ball State University.)

When it comes to workplace discrimination claims, harassment allegations continue to create the greatest exposure for businesses large and small. For decades now, convenience stores and other retail employers have been held legally responsible for unlawful harassment by members of their supervisory team. 

However, the courts have applied different tests for determining who is a “supervisor” under Title VII, with many requiring only that a manager have the authority to direct the victim’s work. By clarifying the legal definition, the Supreme Court has now helped to narrow the extent of an employer’s liability under these circumstances. 

The court ruled that store managers may only impute liability to their employers if they can make 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.”

Courts will always look closely at the relationship between harasser and the victim when assessing vicarious liability. Nonetheless, this is welcome news for employers who were at risk of strict liability based solely on the fact that the alleged harasser had authority to direct the work of a subordinate. Such liability will no longer attach unless the harasser can make significant employment decisions affecting that individual — which may not apply to every member of your management team. 

Consequently, employers are advised to assess and document who has the supervisory authority. These individuals should be provided training that would, among other things, remind them of their status and educate them on the potential risks associated with their conduct. Retailers also should continue taking steps to prevent harassment in the workplace by adopting, disseminating, and educating employees on a comprehensive anti-harassment policy and otherwise demonstrating that reasonable preventive measures were taken. 

For additional information contact Steve Bernstein at Fisher & Phillips LLC.  

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement