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