Running head: CASE BRIEF
1
Case Brief: Vance v. Ball State University ET AL.
Cherry Poole
Western Carolina University
CASE BRIEF
2
Vance v. Ball State University ET AL.
Citation: Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, 570 U.S. ___(2013); 524 U.S. 775; 524 U.S. 742, November 26, 2012, Argued, June
24, 2013, Decided.
Facts: Maetta Vance, an only African-American female who worked at the dining services
department brought this suit. She claimed that her supervisor Saundra Davis created a racially
hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Vance had filed several complaints of racial
discrimination and retaliation to the university. An investigation was conducted and a written
warning was issued to Davis as a result of Vance complaint. She claimed that her work
environment continued to worsen. The university argued that Davis was not her supervisor and
therefore Ball State University was not liable for the actions of her co-worker. Under Title VII,
if the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was
negligent in controlling working conditions. The petitioner appealed to the Seventh Circuit
Court.
ISSUE: Does a co-worker who performs daily duty of overseeing another worker to be
considered a supervisor?
DECISION: The Seventh Circuit Court upheld its decision in favor of the university in a 5-4
vote.
REASON: According to the Seventh Circuit Court under Title VII, an employer only liable to a
“supervisor” only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment
actions against the victim. Since Davis could not hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or
discipline Vance, Ball State University is not liable for Davis’s actions. In the case of Burlington
Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, the harasser had the ability to hire and to promote the
victim. The victim was forced to leave the company. The same rule applied in the case of
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775. Both companies were strictly liable to the violation of
Title VII because these complaints were filed against their supervisors as opposed to co-workers.
Furthermore, the university responded reasonably to Vance’s complaints, therefore it is not liable
to negligence.
SIGNIFICANCE: The final decision of the District Court affirms that Title VII only held
employer liable for workplace harassment if it was caused by his or her supervisors. However,
the definition of “supervisor” is different within District Courts. Some courts define
“supervisor” as whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily
work, while others classify “supervisor” who have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote,
transfer, or discipline their victim. The difference in “supervisor” definition determines an
employer’s liability for workplace harassment. Employer has the absolute power in deciding the
functions of a “supervisor”. The case is significance because workplace harassments do not
CASE BRIEF
happen only between supervisors and employees, but also between co-workers. However, legal
protection from employers does not apply if it happens between co-workers.
3