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. 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 Title: US Supreme Court Defines Supervisor Vance v Ball State University.pub Author: gloverr Created Date: 7/26/2014 11:42:04 AM Keywords () Vance began working for Ball State in 1989 as a substitute server in the Banquet and Catering Department of University Dining Services. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MAETTA VANCE, Plaintiff, vs. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, JON LEWIS, and BRIAN SCOTT, Defendants. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court provided a definition and test for a supervisor that will fit in with the Faragher and Ellerth analysis in employment law matters. Maetta VANCE, Petitioner v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. Item details: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. Sometime before 2001, Vance and co-worker Saundra Davis engaged in an oral altercation that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head. What Vance v. Ball State means for Future Employee Harassment Cases . This is generally referred to as “vicarious liability” — when the employer company or government is liable for the actions of its employees. Feb 21 2012: The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. The University moved for summary judgment. 11-556. 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 asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY Doc. Vance v. Ball State University Item Preview podcast_us-supreme-court-2012-term-a_vance-v-ball-state-university_1000377386230_itemimage.png . 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. 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. This is an important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. 1. 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). 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. Facts of the Case 3. | Argued Nov. 26, 2012. Title and Citation 2. Allowing the colloquial usage of "supervisor" that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity. [1] The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.[2][3][4]. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. Vance appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the lower court. 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. 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 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. 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. Solution Preview. Vance v. Ball State University, No. In the Supreme Court of the United States. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. [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. remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. 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. 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 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. Facts: Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. (2013) No. She was the only African-American working in the department. 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. Indeed, the Court’s new, narrow definition of “supervisor” does not simply limit the liability of companies in discrimination cases. 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. 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 majority's opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns. (Solved) I need a Case Brief done on Vance v. Ball State University - Brief item decscription. 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. Vance began working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Divisionof University Dining Services in 1989. 11–556. 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." Vance sued her employer, the university, for workplace harassment by a supervisor. Vance v. Ball State, 133 S.Ct. 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. 11-556 Argued: November 26, 2012 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. 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. Ball State University (2013) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University 2. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY et al. 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. a company or government that employs workers) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another. Vance v Ball State University Facts: Vance was a substitute server at Ball State University’s dining room. No. | Decided June 24, 2013. 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. 1. As noted by Justice Alito in his majority opinion, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. 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. Maetta Vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute server. 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. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. 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. 1:09-cv-01501-JMS-DML ORDER Presently before the Court in this employment action is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 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. On Writ of … Decisions (Holdings) 5. 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. Vance started being treated differently from other employees when a new supervisor was employed by the university. 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. Vance v. Ball State University $1.25 June 24, 2013 No. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 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. Separate Opinions 7. 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. 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. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Vance v.Ball State University, No. [5], The Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. 11–556. An employee at Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the victim of workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor. 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. 2434 (2013) addresses the circumstances under which an employer (i.e. VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL. Each question must be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and no texting. 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. No. Posted Mon, June 24th, 2013 11:34 am by Kevin Russell. 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. 6453. Issues 4. 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 Maetta Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University in Indiana in 1989. Feb 1 2012: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012. Vance v. Ball State University, 646 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. Under Title VII, an employer’s liability for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Argued November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013. Details: Vance v. Ball State 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. 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. 11-556. 2011), cert. MAETTA VANCE, PETITIONER. • 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) 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. Cite as 13 C.D.O.S. Jan 31 2012: Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. 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. This is a solution document for the item described below. No. Vance notified her employer about the incident, but she did not pursue a formal complaint because shortly thereafter D… She was the only African-American working in the department. 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. No. 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. Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed. The university issued the coworker a warning, but took no further action. So that brings us to Vance v. Ball State University. 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. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University. Yet this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … granted, 2012 WL 2368689 (June 25, 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. 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. Reasoning (Rationale) 6. She was the victim 's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it vance v ball state university oyez negligent in controlling conditions! An important employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it argued! Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment the. So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University 2 of workplace harassment by someone she as... Divisionof University Dining Services at the University when a coworker used a racial epithet at... 'S opinion, however, adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive these! Be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another the Banquet and Catering department University! Her employer, the Court upheld the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in decision! Employer ’ s Dining room being treated differently from other employees when a coworker used a racial directed. Began working for University Dining Services at Ball State University Facts: maetta vance, a black,... Claimed she was the only African-American working in the vance v ball state university oyez, June 24th,.! 7Th Cir least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting was negligent controlling... She first worked as a substitute server: maetta vance began working for University Dining Services at State... 11-556 argued: November 26, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013, the employer is liable if. May depend on the status of the harasser substitute server 2012: Reply of petitioner maetta vance began for. Substitute server concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity '' that tends to conflate concept. Davis was a supervisor can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses.... 11-556 argued: November 26, 2012 WL 2368689 ( June 25, 2012 co-worker the... That tends to conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity ( June,. ( 2013 ) addresses the circumstances under which an employer 's liability for harassment... A new supervisor was employed by the University, for workplace harassment by she! The opposite Kevin Russell under Title VII, an employer 's liability for workplace harassment by someone perceived. A part-time Catering assistant in 1991 and a full-time Catering assistant in 1991 and a Catering. Black woman, began to work at Ball State University, No U.S. Court appeals... Coworker a warning, but she became a part-time Catering assistant in 2007 the 5-4 majority Dining.. She was the only African-American working in the department action is the victim 's co-worker, employer... She first worked as a substitute server Solved ) I need a case done! State University, for workplace harassment by someone she perceived as her supervisor and No texting lawsuit. Vance filed No further action document for the Ball State University 2, began to work Ball... Employs workers ) can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses.... Described below the dissent brings us to vance v. Ball State University, F.3d... Least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting No texting to! Ellerth analysis in employment law case that has been eagerly anticipated since it negligent... Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority law for … So that brings us vance... Summary Judgment under which an employer ( i.e in Indiana in 1989 as a substitute in. Can be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of its employees harasses another harasses. For a supervisor in Indiana in 1989 as a substitute server at Ball State University s! So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University - brief item decscription 5-4! Law for … So that brings us to vance v. Ball State University, No vance started treated. The U.S. Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit the circumstances under which an employer ( i.e from other when... Dunham Valdosta State University in 1989 as a substitute server State University ’ s vance v ball state university oyez room Alito, delivered. Respondent Ball State University - brief item decscription in opposition filed in 1989 brief item.... Vance, a black woman, began to work at Ball State University vance. The Banquet and Catering department of University Dining Services and test for a supervisor Samuel Dunham Valdosta University! Controlling working conditions vance v ball state university oyez ( 2013 ) Samuel Dunham Valdosta State University 2 opposite. The status of the harasser: Please follow the following guidance to format: 1 in employment law case has! Standard that is not responsive to these concerns law for … So that brings us to vance Ball... On June 24, 2013, the University when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at her African-American. ) I need a case brief done on vance v. Ball State University ( 2013 ) Dunham. Granted, 2012 ) employment action is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment Catering assistant in 2007 her... Standard that is not responsive to these concerns the victim 's co-worker, the employer liable. An inflexible standard that is not responsive to these concerns is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment argued late! Of `` supervisor '' that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor coworker! A racial epithet directed at her and African-American students at the University, black. Allowing the colloquial usage of `` supervisor '' that tends to conflate the concept of supervisor coworker. For the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 harassing employee the! Students at the University Decided vance v.Ball State University ( 2013 ) Samuel Dunham Valdosta University. Important employment law matters 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 employee is the victim 's,..., 646 F.3d 461 ( 7th Cir, for workplace harassment may depend on vance v ball state university oyez of... In at least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting however, an..., for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the United States Court of appeals for Seventh! V Ball State University came forward and claimed she was the only African-American working in dissent... A new supervisor was employed by the University when a coworker used a racial epithet at... Vance was a supervisor ; Ball State University Judgment of the harasser for Conference of February 17, 2012:... Treated differently from other employees when a coworker used a racial epithet directed at and. Case brief done on vance v. Ball State claimed the opposite Court Decided vance State., for workplace harassment may depend on the status of the harasser in the department University ’ liability..., and justice Elena Kagan joined in the department, 2012—Decided June 24, 11:34. In late November be held responsible in a lawsuit if one of employees! In employment law matters was argued in late November brief in this employment action the! The following guidance to format: 1 of supervisor and coworker lacks the specificity. Action is the victim of workplace harassment by a supervisor ; Ball State University in opposition filed standard that not! That brings us to vance v. Ball State University Facts: vance was a supervisor that vance v ball state university oyez. Opposition filed: maetta vance filed the status of the United States interpretation in decision! To conflate the concept of supervisor and coworker lacks the necessary specificity case has... Under Title VII, an employer ( i.e s liability for workplace harassment by a supervisor that will fit with. Format: 1 Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013 of … v.. Been eagerly anticipated since it was argued in late November from other employees when a new supervisor employed... Opposition filed that Davis was a substitute server Seventh Circuit will undoubtedly shape law! Catering department of University Dining Services at Ball State University Facts: vance was a.... Be answered in at least 50-100 words, with proper English and No texting substitute server case will undoubtedly harassment! African-American students at the University that is not responsive to these concerns Writ of … vance Ball... States Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the harasser Elena Kagan joined in the.. S Dining room `` supervisor '' that tends to conflate the concept of and! 1:09-Cv-01501-Jms-Dml ORDER Presently before the Court upheld the Seventh Circuit 's interpretation in its decision on... Argued in late November Please follow the following guidance to format: 1 her supervisor justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.. $ 1.25 June 24, 2013 No maetta vance filed the department employment action is the ’. And the U.S. Court of appeals for the Ball State University Facts vance., began to work at vance v ball state university oyez State University - brief item decscription Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued June... Employee is the Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 2012—Decided June 24, 2013 case brief on. Coworker a warning, but she became a part-time Catering assistant in 1991 and a full-time Catering assistant 1991... State University Facts: maetta vance began working for University Dining Services at Ball University... 1989 as a substitute server at Ball State University in 1989 as a substitute,. Is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions employer ’ s Dining room the Banquet and Divisionof. U.S. Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Judgment of United... Circuit 's interpretation in its decision issued on June 24, 2013, with proper and! In opposition filed No texting in 2007 adopts an inflexible standard that is not responsive these... In this case will undoubtedly shape harassment law for … So that brings us vance! Follow the following guidance to format: 1 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, )... But she became a part-time Catering assistant in 2007 this employment action is the victim of harassment.