We Are Open (With Safety Precautions) & Ready To Help:  Click Here To Watched Our Covid-19 Webinar — What Employers Need to Know

Supreme Court Clarifies And Narrows The Definition of "Supervisor"

Written on .

July 2, 2013 -

 In an important decision the Supreme Court clarified who is a “supervisor” for purposes of determining an employer’s liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, greatly narrowing the position urged by the EEOC and adopted by some courts.

In Vance v. Ball State Univ., 11-556, 2013 WL 3155228 (U.S. June 24, 2013), a divided Court held that only those people who have been empowered by the employer to make a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits” are supervisors. The Court rejected various other definitions urged upon them, including that a supervisor includes anyone with authority to direct the activity of the alleged victim and that a supervisor includes those with authority to exercise “significant discretion” over the alleged victim’s daily work.


 This decision is important because employers have much greater liability when a supervisor engages in harassment directed at an employee than when the harassing behavior is carried out by a non-supervisor or coworker. When the harasser is a coworker, the employer is only liable for the harassing conduct if the employee proves that the employer was negligent in allowing the conduct to occur – in other words, if the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, knew about the particular conduct at issue, and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial steps to stop the conduct. When the harassment is carried out by a supervisor, however, the employer is strictly liable if the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action, such as a demotion or termination, against the complaining employee. In these cases, if the harassing conduct occurred, the employer does not have any defense. Furthermore, even when a supervisor’s harassment did not result in a tangible employment action against the employee and correct, the employer is liable unless the employer proves that it took appropriate steps to prevent harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the opportunities the employer provided. For example, the employer had a well-publicized and consistently enforced policy against harassment, including procedures to complain of inappropriate conduct, and that the alleged victim failed to follow that policy, in order to allow the employer to remedy the conduct.

 In the Court’s view, this narrower definition of who is a supervisor and therefore which standard of liability applies will be easier to apply than the broader and more flexible standard adopted by the EEOC and some courts. The Court emphasized that this narrow definition of supervisor does not mean that employers will escape liability for harassment carried out by those with some minimal levels of responsibility, but who do not actually have the power to take tangible employment actions. Rather, in these cases the employer will be liable if the employee proves that the employer was negligent in allowing the conduct to occur.


 While Vance is an important case and a victory for employers, it really applies to only a small number of harassment cases and even in those cases it merely changes the standards of proof; it does not eliminate employers’ obligation to attempt to be vigilant in their efforts to eliminate harassment from the work environment. The decision should be seen as another reminder of the importance that employers have an effective policy in place prohibiting harassment by all employees on any basis, that the policy includes a user friendly procedure for bringing complaints and concerns to the employer’s attention, and that the policy is consistently and fairly enforced. Only by doing so will employers avoid liability.

 For questions or additional information call Rhonda Klein, Kathleen Jennings, Paul Oliver, or any other attorney at (404) 365-0900 or at rlk@wimlaw.com, kjj@wimlaw.com, or po@wimlaw.com.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

medical healthcare, indoors

Supreme Court Again Upholds Affordable Care Act

California v. Texas, the Supreme Court has again upheld the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often known as ObamaCare. A fede...
sticky notes, wall, indoors

No-match Social Security Letters Discontinued

In the past, the Social Security Administration (SSA) during periods of time has issued so-called "no-match letters" to employers with "a...

Supreme Court Allows Catholic Group to Exclude Foster-care Rights

The public and the courts continue to debate whether there should be religious exemptions to LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In other word...
restroom neon light

EEOC Addresses Controversial LGBT Restroom Policies

A year ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII outlawed workplace bias based on sexual orientation a...
buttons on a table, indoor

Labor Board to Reconsider Employer Restrictions on Wearing Buttons and Other Insignia in the Workplace

Many employers do not like the idea of employees wearing pro-union shirts or buttons on the job. In the past, however, and particularly d...
monopoly houses on a wooden table indoors

Supreme Court Rejects Union Access to Employer's Property in California

A strong ruling for employers' private property rights was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in June in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No....
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 2013
  • Supreme Court Clarifies And Narrows The Definition of "Supervisor"

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts

Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2020 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM