We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear
the appeal in the case of Vance v. Ball State University, Case No.
11-556. The issue in Vance is whether an employee who directs
the work of other employees, but who does not have the authority of
a traditional supervisor, can still be considered a
"supervisor" under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964.
There is currently a split among the federal Circuit Courts of
Appeals on the issue of whether an employee who has the authority
to direct the work of other employees is a supervisor under Title
VII, even if he or she does not have the authority to make or
suggest "tangible" employment actions such as to hire,
fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline other employees. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Vance held that such an
employee is not a supervisor, as have the First and Eighth
Circuits. The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held that
supervisory status under Title VII is established if an employee
merely has the authority to direct and oversee the work of others,
like a lead person would. The EEOC, not surprisingly, shares the
latter view. See Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors.
The resolution of this issue will be important to all employers
who are covered by Title VII and similar anti-discrimination laws.
If an alleged harasser is a supervisor, then the employer is
considered liable for the harasser's illegal actions. In that
situation, the employer's only defense would be that it had
effective non-harassment policies and procedures in place, but the
harassed employee unreasonably failed to follow them to stop the
harassment. However, if the alleged harasser is a co-worker and not
a supervisor under Title VII, then the employer can be found liable
only for the co-worker's harassment if it failed to take
reasonable steps to stop the harassment. We will keep you posted as
to future developments on this important issue.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A female employee traveling for her employer met a "friend" and at her motel room with him became "injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her."
The "just cause" standard has long been a cornerstone of traditional labor law (under many collective bargaining agreements, employees generally cannot be discharged except with "just cause").
The Affordable Care Act provides employees who are not offered health coverage by their employers with the option of purchasing health coverage through new health insurance marketplaces (also known as health insurance exchanges) that will operate in every state.
Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require "large" employers to offer their full-time employees healthcare coverage that meets certain standards or pay a penalty.
The Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules will require large employers to make an offer of minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of their full-time employees or pay a non-deductible excise tax on all their full-time employees.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage at the federal level as a legal union between one man and one woman and excuses states from any obligation to recognize same-sex marriages recognized in any other state.
Employers have until October 1, 2013, to provide notice to current employees of coverage options available through the Health Insurance Marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act.
Issues After The Election
