The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case this week to define who qualifies as a “supervisor” in racial and sexual harassment cases. Their decision could dramatically limit employer liability in cases of this nature.
In 1989, Maetta Vance filed a racial harassment case against her former employer Ball State University in Indiana. According to Vance’s lawsuit, one of her supervisors in the catering department, Sandra Davis, frequently using racial epithets and threats against Vance.
A federal appeals court threw out Vance’s case, stating that her harasser did not meet their definition of a supervisor, because she did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, or discipline Vance and therefore the university was not liable, according to NPR.
So Vance took her case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the appeals court was wrong in their definition of “supervisor.” The Justices must now answer the question of who qualifies as a supervisor in harassment cases.
“There are lots where people have power over other employees when they don’t have power to hire or fire them…,” Vance’s attorney Daniel Ortiz said.
The majority of federal appeals courts use the EEOC definition of “supervisor” when considering harassment and discrimination cases. The EEOC defines a supervisor as an individual who has authority to direct an employees daily work activities.
If the Supreme Court redefines “supervisor” it can have an impact on future racial and sexual harassment cases by eliminating an employer’s liability. This means that some harassment cases could fail if a harasser doesn’t meet the court’s criteria of a supervisor, making it difficult for the victims to seek compensation.
If you have been victimized by harassment and want to hold your harasser accountable for their actions when your employer has ignored your complaints, a New York sexual harassment lawyer will devote their time and energy to your case, ensuring a favorable settlement.