In Vance v. Ball State University, a divided Supreme Court held that a harasser does not qualify as a supervisor unless he or she has the power to “take tangible employment actions against the victim” – colloquially, the power to hire and fire. This matters because the employer's liability under Title VII for workplace harassment committed by supervisors is much stronger than it is for harassment inflicted by coworkers.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito opted for a bright-line rule over one that might have provided redress for the harm that employees suffer at the hands of harassers who, despite not having the power to hire and fire, nonetheless dictate many or all aspects of employees’ daily working conditions.

THE FACTS IN VANCE V. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

This case revolves around allegations by Maetta Vance, an African-American woman who worked at Ball State University (BSU), in its kitchen and catering department, that she was racially harassed. Vance began working at BSU in 2001, and she was, for many of the years she worked there, the only African-American employee.

While employed by BSU, Vance complained numerous times of racial discrimination and retaliation. Upon review by the Supreme Court, however, only her complaints involving one employee, Saundra Davis, were at issue. Davis is a white woman who worked as a catering specialist at BSU, while Vance worked as a catering assistant.

In internal complaints and charges with the EEOC, Vance alleged that Davis cornered her on an elevator in a threatening manner and told her, “I'll do it again.” And although Justice Alito leaves out these allegations in his description of the facts, Vance also alleged that Davis used the racial slurs “Buckwheat” and “Sambo” to refer to Vance, both in Vance's presence and outside of it. BSU did take some measures in response to Vance's complaints, but none was sufficient to resolve the problem.

According to the Supreme Court's opinion, the parties “vigorously dispute the precise nature and scope of Davis's duties, but they agree that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance.”

Vance eventually filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that she suffered a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. In her complaint, she alleged that Davis was her supervisor and was responsible for creation of the hostile environment.