With the recent focus on the new Paid Sick Leave law coming in a few weeks, it's been easy to miss a few court cases that have come out recently that should be of interest to employers and their counsel.
One such case, O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, provides important guidance as to who may be a "supervisor" under state discrimination and harassment laws.
In the case, the Connecticut Supreme Court clarified the definition, choosing to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court's standard in Vance v. Ball State University. The ruling narrows the scope, focusing on individuals with significant authority over employees' working conditions or the power to make tangible employment decisions.
The case arose when an employee alleged workplace discrimination and argued that a particular colleague should be considered a supervisor, making the employer liable under state law.
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that supervisory status requires more than informal influence or seniority. Instead, it demands demonstrable authority, such as hiring, firing, promoting, or directing daily activities. This distinction can heavily impact liability in harassment cases, where employers are automatically liable for supervisors' misconduct unless proper safeguards exist.
Beyond the headlines though, what are some practical implications for employers? Here are three things to consider:
1) Employers should ensure clarity around who qualifies as a supervisor. This requires the occasional revisiting of organizational charts, job descriptions, and authority structures to assess alignment with legal definitions.
2) Employers should understand that a supervisor's status can determine whether it faces strict liability or a more lenient standard in harassment cases. For non-supervisors, an employer may defend against liability by demonstrating proper prevention and corrective measures. Tangible records of who holds supervisory authority—and how that authority is executed—can protect employers in the event of litigation.
3) Regardless, employers should train individuals in supervisory roles on anti-discrimination policies, complaint-handling procedures, and their legal responsibilities.
It's easy to overlook court rulings like this as just another legal topic but the ruling underscores the need for employers to be proactive when it comes to defining who is — or is not — a supervisor.
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.
