Generally speaking, an employer can be held liable for a supervisor's conduct and even another employee's actions toward other employees. However, while an employer is strictly liable for the behavior of a supervisor; the employer is only liable for a non-supervisor's actions if the employer is negligent in their response to prior complaints. In two separate cases decided in 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the definition of what constitutes a "supervisor."
The Supreme Court set forth a test of what constitutes a supervisor in the case entitled Vance v. Ball State University. Ms. Vance was a long-time employee in the catering department of Ball State University ("BSU"). Over the course of her employment she made a number of complaints of racial discrimination and retaliation, pertaining to another BSU catering employee, Ms. Davis. Ms. Vance filed complaints with the EEOC, and subsequently a lawsuit, claiming that she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violations of Title VII. Ms. Vance contented that Ms. Davis was her supervisor and that BSU was therefore strictly liable for the creation of the hostile work environment. However, it was undisputed that Ms. Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Ms. Vance. The district court entered summary judgment for BSU finding that Ms. Davis not Ms. Vance's supervisor. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that Ms. Davis was not a supervisor and BSU was therefore, not strictly liable for her actions. The EEOC argued that a supervisor status is the ability to exercise significant direction over another's daily work. However, the Supreme Court rejected the EEOC's definition, holding that the proper test to determine whether an individual is qualified as a supervisor requires the following finding: an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment action against the victim. Tangible employment action means to effect 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.
The Tenth Circuit applied the Supreme Court's test to determine whether or not a supervisory relationship existed in the 2013 case of McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, Inc. Ms. McCafferty worked for Preiss Enterprises when she was fifteen (15) years old. She alleged that a twenty-one (21) year old shift leader was supposed to drive her to her shift but told her she was excused from work that day. When McCafferty failed to appear at work she was treated as voluntarily resigning her employment. McCafferty filed a lawsuit against Preiss and the shift leader alleging violations of harassment. McCafferty argued that the shift leader directed the daily work of the employees, scheduled shifts, had the authority to keep employees late or send them how early, and could discipline employees. The trial court granted summary judgment against McCafferty on all her claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that since the shift leader did not have the power to hire, fire, promote, demote, or transfer employees, he was not a supervisor, and the employer was therefore not strictly liable for his actions.
If you have a question about harassment or discriminatory acts against you by a supervisor or co-worker, contact us at www.BryanKuhnLaw.com/ to discuss your legal rights.