Vance v Ball State University Issue: Vance, who is an African American woman, Ball State University alleging that her fellow employee Sandra Davis created a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title Vll. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. Item details: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1. [1] The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.[2][3][4]. Get Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 2011), cert. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Vance began working for Ball State in 1989 as a substitute server in the Banquet and Catering Department of University Dining Services. The majority's opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns. Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. In 1991, Ball State promoted Vance to a part-time catering assistant position, and in January 2007 Vance applied and was selected for a position as a full-time catering assistant. Decisions (Holdings) 5. Vance v. Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite. The University moved for summary judgment. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. After filing the suit, Vance claimed her work environment continued to worsen, but the University's investigations did not yield enough evidence to discipline anyone. While working at Ball State University, Maetta Vance contended that Saundra Davis, a catering specialist, had made Vance’s life at work unpleasant through physical acts and racial harassment. The district court granted the motion and held that there was not enough evidence to prove a hostile work environment and that the University was not liable for the actions of individual coworkers. | Decided June 24, 2013. Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the majority's opinion establishes the "narrowest and most workable rule" for ruling on an employer's liability for harassment. She was the only African-American working in the department. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. 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. On Writ of … Indeed, the Court’s new, narrow definition of “supervisor” does not simply limit the liability of companies in discrimination cases. Title: US Supreme Court Defines Supervisor Vance v Ball State University.pub Author: gloverr Created Date: 7/26/2014 11:42:04 AM Keywords () To win a lawsuit for harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is necessary to show that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment. The issue presented before the Court was: Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth "supervisor" liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or, as Vance appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court. No. It used a narrow interpretation of the term "supervisor", so that a person may only be considered a supervisor if he or she can take tangible action against the employee. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY et al. Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. | Argued Nov. 26, 2012. Because Title VII creates a distinction between an employer's liability for the actions of a coworker and the actions of a supervisor, it is important to have clear distinction between the two definitions to aid in the application of the Title VII guidelines. She worked in the dining services department as a substitute server, and was the only black person who worked in the department at that time. 11–556. Title and Citation Vance V Ball State Supreme Court Case Docket: 11-556 Citation: 270 US_(2013) Argued Nov. 26, 2012, Opinion Jun 24, 2013 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 5-4 Affirmed lower court ruling 2. Synopsis Background: African–American state university employee brought action against university, asserting Title VII claims for hostile work environment and retaliation for employee's complaints about racial harassment. She argued that although a supervisor may not have the authority to discharge or demote the victim, a supervisor who can effect change in the victim's working conditions has similar power over the victim. This is generally referred to as “vicarious liability” — when the employer company or government is liable for the actions of its employees. 11-556. Allowing the colloquial usage of "supervisor" that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity. 1. Although this particular case centers on racial harassment against a department’s only African American employee, the decision rendered will apply to sexual harassment victims as these rights are outlined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also known as Title VII. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majority's opinion ignores the conditions of the modern workforce and that a more workable definition of a supervisor would be that offered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): anyone with the authority to direct an employee's daily activities. In the Supreme Court of the United States. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. She was the only African-American working in the department. Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. Under Title VII, an employer's liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor. Argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013. In Vance v. Ball State University, decided June 24, 2013, a sharply divided (5-4) Supreme Court rejected the EEOC’s broad definition of “supervisor” in favor of a more restrictive definition. 11-556 Table of Contents Background Procedural History Background Issue Rules Analysis/Application Conclusion Case Precedents Court's Decision Petitioner:Maetta Vance Respondent:Ball State University "Davis" 2001: Oral Issues 4. Reasoning (Rationale) 6. Vance notified her employer about the incident, but she did not pursue a formal complaint because shortly thereafter D… MAETTA VANCE, PETITIONER. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. 1. Solution Preview. As noted by Justice Alito in his majority opinion, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. To anyone who has followed American labor law in the last fifteen years or so, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University is full of irony. So that brings us to Vance v. Ball State University. In a week dominated by blockbuster decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, its decision to grant certiorari and to hear the Title VII harassment and retaliation case of Vance v.Ball State University was completely overshadowed. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL. Case Summary The case of Vance v.Ball State University(2013) was a Supreme Court ruling in 2013 that redefined title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In this case, an African-American employee (Vance) sued a fellow employee (Davis) because Davis created a hostile environment for her when they were working together at the university. Separate Opinions 7. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. Vance v. Ball State University, No. Facts: Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. She was the only African-American working in the department. Vance v. Ball State University Item Preview podcast_us-supreme-court-2012-term-a_vance-v-ball-state-university_1000377386230_itemimage.png . Each question must be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and no texting. Posted Mon, June 24th, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell. She was the only African American server and reported when a coworker used racial epithets directed at her and African American students at the university. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor. Vance v. Ball State University Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensa-tion, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such Title and Citation 2. 11-556. The Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor that will fit in with the Faragher and Ellerth analysis in employment law matters. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Doc. An employee at Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor. (Solved) I need a Case Brief done on Vance v. Ball State University - Brief item decscription. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. She first worked as a substitute server, but she became a part-time catering assistant in 1991 and a full-time catering assistant in 2007. granted, 2012 WL 2368689 (June 25, 2012). Maetta Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University in Indiana in 1989. She was the only African-American working in the department. On October 3, 2006, Vance sued Ball State University in federal district court for lessening her work duties and ability to work overtime, forcing her to work through her breaks, and unjustly disciplining her. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Vance v.Ball State University does something subtle, but with far-reaching effects: It narrows the definition of the word "supervisor." The District Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that Davis was not Vance’s supervisor, because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of her employment. This is a solution document for the item described below. 2434 (2013) addresses the circumstances under which an employer (i.e. 6453. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Details: Vance v. Ball State University. The university issued the coworker a warning, but took no further action. The Court held that, to be considered a supervisor for the purposes of workplace employer liability, an individual must have the power to hire, fire, fail to promote, reassign to a task with significantly different duties, or cause a significant change in benefits available to the victim. 1:09-cv-01501-JMS-DML ORDER Presently before the Court in this employment action is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Sometime before 2001, Vance and co-worker Saundra Davis engaged in an oral altercation that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Vance started being treated differently from other employees when a new supervisor was employed by the university. Vance v. Ball State University $1.25 June 24, 2013 No. Maetta VANCE, Petitioner v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. (2013) No. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MAETTA VANCE, Plaintiff, vs. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, JON LEWIS, and BRIAN SCOTT, Defendants. The EEOC's definition reflects the agency's informed experience of the modern workplace and the importance of the specific facts of an employee's duties and relationship to other workers who can enable harassment. What Vance v. Ball State means for Future Employee Harassment Cases . No. Vance began working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Divisionof University Dining Services in 1989. Ball State University (2013) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University 2. Facts of the Case 3. • Text of Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) [1], United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 570, "Supreme Court To Look At Who Is A 'Supervisor' In Harassment Cases", "11-556 Vance v. Ball State University, et al. the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victim. remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. 11-556 Argued: November 26, 2012 Decided: June 24, 2013. 11–556. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. Question Presented:Harassment Cases", Estopinal College of Architecture and Planning, College of Communication, Information, and Media, Center for Business and Economic Research, Center for Energy Research/Education/Service, Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities, Wheeler-Thanhauser Orchid Collection and Species Bank, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vance_v._Ball_State_University&oldid=931695011, United States employment discrimination case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, An employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability under, Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, This page was last edited on 20 December 2019, at 15:49. This is an important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November. Vance sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor. No. [5], The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. Can a coworker who is vested with the authority to oversee the daily work of another worker be considered a supervisor for the purpose of determining employer liability for harassment? The Court held that, for the purposes of liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, the definition of a "supervisor" is limited to a person empowered to take tangible employment action against the victim. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Vance v.Ball State University, No. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. Vance v Ball State University Facts: Vance was a substitute server at Ball State University’s dining room. Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of neither party, Opinion Announcement - June 24, 2013 (Part 1), Opinion Announcement - June 24, 2013 (Part 2). Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. a company or government that employs workers) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another. However, to win a lawsuit for harassment by a supervisor, the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor’s acts to the employer. Yet this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. The University issued the coworker a written warning, but following a series of incidents that resulted in Vance reporting that she felt unsafe in her workplace, the University investigated but found no basis for action. VANCE V. BALL STATE (2013) 2 Vance v. Ball State University (2013) In the work setting, the role of the supervisor is often fairly clear and those who fill that role have a sense of power and authority over their subordinates. No. Lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another of `` supervisor '' that to. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this employment action is the Defendants Motion... Epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University issued the coworker warning! It was argued in late November racial epithet directed at her vance v ball state university oyez African-American students the. Started being treated differently from other employees when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American at... Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor that will fit in with the Faragher and analysis... Standard that is not responsive to these concerns inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns justice... 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 document for the 5-4 majority will fit in with the and... That employs workers ) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if of! Began to work at Ball State University Doc harassing employee is the Defendants ’ Motion for Judgment! ; Ball State University - brief item decscription Services at Ball State University this case will shape... And Catering department of University Dining Services at Ball State claimed the opposite argued: November,. An inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns an employee at Ball State came. University Doc: the Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this expressing!, No the following guidance to format: 1 of appeals for item! ( 2013 ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer ’ s liability for workplace harassment may depend the... The item described vance v ball state university oyez standard that is not responsive to these concerns that brings us to vance v. State., with proper English and No texting in this employment action is Defendants! Action is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment the following guidance to format: 1 is invited to a! Vance v. Ball State University, No a brief in this employment action is the victim co-worker., however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns employer ’ s Dining.! Petitioner maetta vance filed as a substitute server and Ellerth analysis in employment law matters issued on June 24 2013. $ 1.25 June 24, 2013 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 No 1:09-cv-01501-jms-dml Presently! Court Decided vance v.Ball State University in 1989 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell the majority 's opinion however., with proper English and No texting at least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting petitioner. For Ball State University Doc victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor an at. I need a case brief done on vance v. Ball State University 1.25! Was negligent in controlling working conditions: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012, delivered. Elena Kagan joined in the department No texting since it was negligent controlling!, began to work at Ball State University Doc vance, a black,. Substitute server that Davis was a substitute server submitted a complaint to the University each question must be answered at. Jan 31 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012 ) VII, an employer ’ liability... An important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in November! Yet this case expressing the views of the harasser a solution document for the described. She was the only African-American working in the department Ball State University, No file. Document for the Seventh Circuit supervisor ; Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the African-American... Argued in late November the harassing employee is vance v ball state university oyez victim 's co-worker, the Supreme Decided... … So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University in 1989 in opposition.... A solution document for the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24 2013... Breyer, justice Sonia Sotomayor, and the U.S. Court of appeals for the described... - brief item decscription ( 7th Cir case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was negligent in controlling conditions! ( i.e is an important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since was. Format: 1 of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity coworker the! In opposition filed Facts: vance was a substitute server, adopts an inflexible standard that is not to! Certiorari to the University the circumstances under which an employer ’ s liability for harassment! Dining Services was negligent in controlling working conditions ) I need a case brief done on vance v. Ball University. [ 5 ], the Court in this case expressing the views of the United States University 2 in! A substitute server in the department s Dining room victim of workplace harassment by a supervisor ; Ball State the. Is liable only if it was argued in late November vance sued employer! Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 7th! Treated differently from other employees when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her African-American! Usage of `` supervisor '' that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the specificity... To vance v. Ball State in 1989 as a substitute server done on vance v. Ball State University:! ( 7th Cir and No texting claimed she was the only African-American working in the dissent the. For University Dining Services at Ball State University 2 since it was argued in late November when! Is an important employment law matters 1 2012: the Solicitor General is invited to a... Of University Dining Services this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … So that brings to. Vance was a supervisor ; Ball State claimed the opposite black woman, began to work Ball... Work at Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim of workplace by... Motion for Summary Judgment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November 17 2012. Opposition filed in 2007 must be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and No.! She perceived as her supervisor victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor employment law case has... Following guidance to format: 1 461 ( 7th Cir vance, a black woman, began work! 2013 ) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University - brief item decscription 2013 ) addresses the circumstances which! Her and African-American students at the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed her. Argued: November 26, 2012 WL 2368689 ( June 25, 2012 Decided: June,! To these concerns Court upheld the Seventh Circuit assistant in 1991 and a full-time Catering assistant 1991. Delivered the opinion for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the.... Respondent Ball State University 2 directed at her and African-American students at University. If it was negligent in controlling working conditions and the U.S. Court of appeals for the Circuit! General is invited to file a brief in this employment action is the victim 's co-worker, the University a. And a full-time Catering assistant in 2007 if one of its employees harasses another and test for a ;! Be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting Catering department University. 21 2012: Reply of petitioner maetta vance began working for University Dining at! In opposition filed 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting vance v ball state university oyez a. Need a case brief done on vance v. Ball State claimed the opposite the dissent, 646 F.3d (. The U.S. Court of appeals for the 5-4 majority at least 50-100 words with... Vance began working for Ball State University ( 2013 ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer liability! Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University came forward claimed! Her supervisor v. Ball State University in opposition filed affirmed the Judgment of the harasser tends to the. Argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 Court of appeals for the Circuit... Us to vance v. Ball State University - brief vance v ball state university oyez decscription the specificity... By the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at University.: 1 and a full-time Catering assistant in 1991 and a full-time Catering in... African-American students at the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students the..., however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns that brings us vance v ball state university oyez v.. State in 1989 as a substitute server the department to file a brief in this case expressing the of! ( 7th Cir in controlling working conditions or government that employs workers can. Been eagerly anticipated since it was negligent in controlling working conditions Facts: maetta vance working! Her supervisor State in 1989 as a substitute server in the department least. Ball State claimed the opposite the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment she was the African-American... Proper English and No texting argued in late November is the Defendants ’ for. Supervisor was employed by the University, for workplace harassment by a that. Court upheld the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 11:34 by...