Summarize: Vance v. Ball State University

Summarize a case Student: Professor: Course title: Date: Summarize a case Vance v. Ball State University Summary of the Issues in the case The court case of Maetta Vance (Petitioner) v. Ball State University is concerned about who counted and who did not count as a supervisor under Title VII. Alleging claims such as hostile work environment and retaliation, Ms. Vance, who is represented in court by Mr. Ortiz, is suing her employer for the violation of Title VII. Ms. Vance alleges that Ms. Davis of Ball State University had supervisory authority that triggered vicarious liability. Both parties were on agreement to the general legal standard that the harassers who have been conferred authority by their employers over their victims count as supervisors. They also agreed that the authority materially augments the harassment to the victims (Alderson Reporting Company (ARC), 2012). The term ‘augment’ has been used to mean that, the harassment is sufficient to instill the sense of fear in the victim, so that the harassed individual does not turn in the harasser. Moreover, it is also sufficient to the extent that the harasser has the ability to control the victim’s physical location and therefore, it can augment harassment. As Mr. Ortiz asserts, Ms. Davis’ role is considered as a supervisor and was being accused of harassment. He adds that she was a catering specialist and supervised various positions. Under the Seventh Circuit test, the category of the supervisor is the worker who has some kind of power over their victims, unlike that of the co-worker who has no power over the workers. Only those actions, which are materially adverse to the employees, count as harassment. The district court divided harassment into two categories, one consisted of events that are overtly racial in nature while the other did not. Justice Sotomayor stated that there is a difference between supervisors who have the power to take direct tangible actions and those who do not, and are instead supervised by others. Ms. Davis did not have direct supervisory role at the university. The oral argument of Srinivasan held that when an individual controls the daily activities of a subordinate and subjects him or her to harassment, then that individual is considered as a supervisor (Alderson Reporting Company, 2012). People might express their complaints about the exercise of authority by a coworker who has certain responsibilities, which may be viewed as supervisory. For instance, in a workplace, if one employee exercises authority over others and plays certain music that others do not like but are expected to listen anyway, then that person is considered as the supervisor. However, under the Unites States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement guidelines, such kind of authority can only be exercised over a limited number of tasks or field. In the case of Faragher, the lifeguard supervisor gave her daily assignments and even controlled her actions while on the job. The supervisor controlled every aspect of her life including cleaning the toilets (Findlaw, 2012). According to the EEOC guidelines, as an alternative for qualifying as a supervisor, the person has the power to direct the daily work activities of the employee(s). Moreover, someone counts as a supervisor when he or she undertakes tangible employment action and if he or she has an important role in making recommendations that in turn cause tangible employment actions. However, the supervisor should not have control over daily work activities of the employees as the EEOC guidelines state (Alderson Reporting Company, 2012). The Faragher and Ellerth supervisory liability rule is only applicable to the harassers who have the power to promote, demote, hire fire, discipline or transfer their victims. Mr. Garre who represents the respondent pointed out that the Seventh Circuit was not complete on who could qualify as supervisor, but it was clear that the person whose status is at issue did not qualify as a supervisor. Mr. Garre argues that Ms. Davis was not the supervisor and adds that it was the chef or Mr. Kimes who made daily assignment to other employees through prep sheets, which specified daily activities of the employees. Moreover, evidence and the record clearly show that Mr. Kimes controlled the daily schedule of the employees. Lifeguard Silverman in Faragher case had the power to control every aspect of the victim’s daily schedule and activities in a manner that was virtually unchecked and he qualified as a supervisor under the non-Seventh Circuit category (American Ba...