var googletag = googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad(); });
device = device.default;
//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });

Who is a ''Supervisor'' for Employer Liability? All Eyes Are Glued to Vance v. Ball State University

published October 15, 2012

By CEO and Founder - BCG Attorney Search left

( 3 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
For an in-house counsel vicarious employer liability for the acts of a supervisor is an important issue and currently there seems to be a split between the circuit courts in the definition of a “supervisor” when it comes to employer liability. The matter of Vance v. Ball State University is scheduled to come up for hearing on Nov. 26, 2012, and it is important because the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to clarify, once and for all, the question of who is a “supervisor” as regards whose actions makes an employer liable.
 
Who is a ''Supervisor'' for Employer Liability?

Why is the definition of a "supervisor" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, important?


If the harasser of an employee is a "supervisor" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then the employer has vicarious liability, if the harasser does not meet the definition of a ‘supervisor' then to ascribe employer liability, the victim would need to prove knowledge or involvement of the employer in such harassment.

The definition clarified by the Supreme Court in the upcoming hearing of Vance would help in-house counsel design internal anti-harassment policies and grievance procedures, as also define employment scope and contracts of supervisorial employees.

The question as presented in Vance v. Ball State University

The question of law presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance is as follows:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/11-00556qp.pdf
 
In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), this Court held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim's co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence. In the decision below, the Seventh Circuit held that actionable harassment by a person whom the employer deemed a "supervisor" and who had the authority to direct and oversee the victim's daily work could not give rise to vicarious liability because the harasser did not also have the power to take formal employment actions against her. The question presented is:

Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth "supervisor" liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or, as the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" their victims.

The answer to the question is going to determine employer liability in cases of employee harassment by another employee acting in the capacity of a ‘supervisor,' and consequently would influence the guidance of in-house lawyers. Obviously, it would also lead to changes in employment contracts and defined scopes of work of certain employees whose work falls in the currently clouded area of supervisorial activity over which the circuit courts are divided.

The current split between the circuit courts on defining ‘supervisor' in case of employer liability

Though hopefully, the Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State University would help to clear up the situation, currently, the First, Seventh, and Eighth circuits hold according to traditional employment law doctrines that a person who does not have the power to hire or fire an employee is not an employer or supervisor vis-à-vis that employee. This is not in line with the stance taken by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ellerth or Faragher or the guidance developed by the EEOC following the Supreme Court decisions.

On the other hand, the EEOC, Ellerth and Faragher, and subsequently the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits follow a broader definition of “supervisor” in the case of employee harassment and consequent employer liability. This camp broadens the definition of a ‘supervisor' to embrace any person who possesses the authority to direct the daily actions of an employee.

The Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State University is expected to clear up things as regards the definition of a “supervisor” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the application of State laws would continue to define the scope of employer liability in employee harassment where state laws have a stricter interpretation of employee harassment than found in the Civil Rights Act.

Alternative Summary

Harrison is the founder of BCG Attorney Search and several companies in the legal employment space that collectively gets thousands of attorneys jobs each year. Harrison’s writings about attorney careers and placement attract millions of reads each year. Harrison is widely considered the most successful recruiter in the United States and personally places multiple attorneys most weeks. His articles on legal search and placement are read by attorneys, law students and others millions of times per year.

More about Harrison

About LawCrossing

LawCrossing has received tens of thousands of attorneys jobs and has been the leading legal job board in the United States for almost two decades. LawCrossing helps attorneys dramatically improve their careers by locating every legal job opening in the market. Unlike other job sites, LawCrossing consolidates every job in the legal market and posts jobs regardless of whether or not an employer is paying. LawCrossing takes your legal career seriously and understands the legal profession. For more information, please visit www.LawCrossing.com.
( 3 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related