Case research paper (vance v ball state)

Running head: VANCE V. BALL STATE (2013) 1
Vance v. Ball State University (2013)
Samuel Dunham
Valdosta State University

VANCE V. BALL STATE (2013) 2
Vance v. Ball State University (2013)
In the work setting, the role of the supervisor is often fairly clear and those who fill that
role have a sense of power and authority over their subordinates. Classifying who supervisors are
in the organization is typically an easy task; one can typically look at the individual’s job tasks
and responsibilities, or even their physical presence/appearance. However, in Vance v. Ball State
(2013), the definition of a supervisor was challenged through litigation all the way to the
Supreme Court. The case centered on whether the term “supervisor” should be interpreted
broadly or more specifically. This case will have major legal, ethical, and social implications that
will be examined in this paper.
Early Case Background
Maetta Vance worked for the University Dining Services at Ball State University as a
server beginning in 1989. One important fact in this case was that she was the only African-
American working in the department. Vance submitted a complaint to the University when one
of her coworkers allegedly said a racial remark towards her and the African-American students at
Ball State. The coworker was given a written warning by the university. However, after that
incident, there were a series of incidents that left Vance feeling unsafe in her workplace. From
there, Ball State investigated the series of incidents but found nothing to address. Following that
sequence, Vance sued the University in federal district court for the following offenses: lessening
her work duties and ability to work overtime, forcing her to work through her breaks, and
unjustly disciplining her in 2006. After filing the suit, Vance claimed that her work environment
continued to get worse, but the University’s investigations did not find enough evidence to
discipline anyone for the alleged offenses.

The University moved for summary judgment. The district court granted that motion and
held that there was not enough evidence to prove that a hostile work environment existed or that
the coworker who made the alleged racial remarks was in fact Vance’s supervisor. As such, the
University was not liable for the actions of the coworker’s comment, even if the harassment did
occur. Vance appealed the decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
Supreme Court Decision
After hearing the case, the Supreme Court held the opinion of the previous two courts and
found in favor of Ball State. While the previous two courts found in favor of the university
primarily because of the lack of evidence in proving a hostile work environment, the Supreme
Court found in favor of Ball State because the coworker who made the alleged remarks was not
considered a supervisor by the Court’s standards, meaning that Ball State could not be held liable
for the actions of that employee.
The Court held that the definition of a supervisor was “limited to a person empowered to
take tangible employment action against the victim” (“Vance v. Ball State,” n.d.). The Court was
concerned that if the definition of a supervisor was expanded to be any more broad, that it would
be extremely difficult (and nearly impossible) to determine who would be considered a
supervisor for discrimination/ harassment cases. The Court looked to specify who was liable for
damages in these particular types of cases. By defining the “supervisor” as the Court did, the
“narrowest and most workable rule” was established for the justice system to use in harassment
case rulings (“Vance v. Ball State,” n.d.).
Despite the opinion of the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was strongly opposed to
the ruling and made that much clear in her dissent. Ginsburg’s main argument was that the

Court’s decision and definition of a supervisor failed to account for the modern workforce (Fask,
2013). She was in favor of using the definition of a supervisor that was written by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would be more workable. The EEOC defined a
supervisor as “anyone with the authority to direct an employee’s daily activities” (“Vance v. Ball
State,” n.d.). Another argument provided by Ginsburg was that “although a supervisor may not
have the authority to discharge or demote the victim, a supervisor who can effect change in the
victim’s working conditions has similar power over the victim” (“Vance v. Ball State,” n.d.). In
the dissent, it is noted that the EEOC definition of a supervisor accounted for the modern
workforce and the complex relationships in the workplace, while the majority’s opinion could
not claim to do the same because it is too inflexible.
There were two particularly relevant cases whose rulings impacted this particular case:
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998). These
two cases made the definition of a supervisor fairly restrictive for the courts in harassment cases.
They also provided the framework that an organization would be safe from litigation if they did
not permit harassment and took steps to correct it when it occurred (Lapp & Olsen, 2013). It is
from Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) that a supervisor was defined as a person who could
“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” (“Supreme Court Adopts,” 2013). This definition provided the specific
framework that was embraced by the Supreme Court in this case. This distinction was important
because it greatly contrasted the view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) that a supervisor could basically be anybody who could impact an employee’s daily
work activities (Fask, 2013).

Legal Implications
This case had some major implications in the legal aspect. The classification of what
constitutes a supervisor was clarified and made to be more restrictive. However, the Supreme
Court Dissent leaves some debate as to whether the definition of a supervisor provided by the
court was adequate for adjusting to the changes of the modern societal work culture.
The issue with this definition from those dissenting was that it was so specific that it did
not account for the complex work relationships that occur in today’s workplace setting.
However, it was for the very reason of making the definition as specific as possible that the five
Justices who ruled in favor of Ball State decided to do so. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his
concurring opinion that the ruling allowed the “narrowest and most workable rule” (“Vance v.
Ball State,” n.d.). The workplace relationships can be complex but one major point mentioned by
the majority was that if the Court ruled in favor of Vance, the definition of a supervisor would be
so broad that it would be hard to consistently determine who is classified as a supervisor.
The ruling will make it difficult for negatively impacted employees to receive a fair
compensation (“Supreme Court Backs Employers,” 2013). If organizations were held
accountable and could be held liable, the consequences could be made in proportion to the
organization’s net worth so that the impacted employee is compensated and the organization
receives the message that they cannot allow workplace harassment to occur under their
supervision. With this ruling, the impacted individual cannot really receive anything for the
actions taken against them because they would only be able to receive compensation from the
coworker instead of the organization (who has more to offer in terms of compensation).
It is also my belief that this ruling in favor of Ball State protects organizations from major
consequences. They can appoint individuals to be over other employees but can protect

themselves from lawsuits by limiting the amount of authority that the appointed individuals have.
The employee can, inherently, appoint an employee to a position of supervisory nature, limit
their power, and then not concern itself with the consequences of inappropriate behavior from
these appointed employees. The organization can set up a strategic power structure that can
possibly eliminate the amount of liability they would possess by only granting the power to take
tangible actions against other employees to a few select employees.
Ethical Implications
The ethical implications of this ruling cannot be understated. Organizations are expected
to take responsibility for any issues that occur under their watch because of their wealth of
resources. In our society, the strongest tend to survive. However, that is often balanced with the
ethical principle that the strong (or in this case, the organization) have a responsibility to take
care of the weak (the employees and customers). It is a part of the reason why organization care
so much about the opinions of their customers and employees.
This ruling limits the amount of responsibility that the organization has to have for their
employees. Organizations will have less responsibility towards their employees and their
problems as a result. If an employee is claiming that another employee has harassed them and
they are not classified as a supervisor, then the organization can take its hands off of the situation
and refuse to become involved. This mindset goes against the ethical mindset of helping less
powerful others our society.
It also removes some of the consequences of unwise selection decisions. If organizations
can be held liable for the behavior of all of their employees, it would require them to protect
themselves by looking to make better selection decisions. I am not arguing that this should be
the case because personal responsibility has to play a role at some level and individual

employees should be held accountable for their actions. The point is that the more liable
organizations are held for the behaviors of the people they hire; the more likely they will be to be
more careful in making selection decisions.
The ruling also allows organizations to set up complex and vague hierarchical
relationships between employees that can manipulate any court ruling in the favor of the
organization. For example, if the organization appoints an employee to be the leader of a
particular organizational team and that employee partakes in any illegal behaviors (i.e.
discrimination, harassment, etc.), the organization is still protected despite the fact that the team
leader was appointed by the organization in a supervisory role. The reason the organization
would be protected is because the team leader would not be able to hire, fire, fail to promote,
reassign to a task with significantly different duties, or cause a significant change in the benefits
available to the employee to which the illegal behaviors were acted out towards. This is despite
the fact that the organization has given the team leader authority in a supervisory role.
Social Implications
Socially, the ruling of this case tilts the power in favor of organizations over their
employees (Brody & Silver, 2013). What is interesting about this case is that the decision was
five votes to four in favor of Ball State University. The five Justices who sided with Ball State
were all appointed by Republican presidents, while the four who dissented were all appointed by
Democratic presidents. Former Democratic Congressman Tom Perriello had this to say, “The
members of the Roberts majority seem much more comfortable siding with big corporate
interests rather than sick patients, employees who have suffered harassment or consumers
gouged by tricks and traps” (Wolf, 2013).

This ruling along with others (i.e., University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v.
Nassar, 2012) is demonstrating that the institution of the organization is more valued in our
society than the individual employees. In other words, the whole is being deemed more
important than the individual persons. Socially this is a bit odd because the United States has a
predominately individualistic culture, but this ruling would be more in line with a more
collectivist society.
This ruling also conveys the social message that just because an employee has
authoritative power over another does not mean that they are legally considered a supervisor. It
sends the message that having power and having true authority are two completely different
things. The power comes from the actual position, while the authority comes from what actions
can be done in that position. In the organizational setting, this opens the door for “lame-duck”
managers to be put in positions of power with supervisory titles, be given no authority to hire or
fire their subordinates, and still negatively impact those subordinates. Even though the
organization put the managers in their positions of power, they can still avoid any legal
repercussions by the technical difference between power and authority. This gives organizations
the upper hand over their employees because this distinction allows organizations to use their
supervisors in a way that helps the organization avoid litigation by taking away one or two
responsibilities that are typical of supervisors.
There is a tendency for societies to take on the practices of the businesses that operate in
the society and I believe that this could possibly hold true in this particular instance. We may
begin seeing people recognize that authority and true power are not the same thing. In time, it
could make it difficult for some who are considered societal leaders to have influence in their
respective positions going forward.

Case Takeaways
This case has some important implications for organizations as well as for any employee
who has authority in the workplace. From this particular case, the organization should look to do
the following three things: set clear boundaries of command, emphasize training for supervisors,
and avoid complacency at all costs (“Supreme Court Rejects EEOC,” 2013).
When the Supreme Court made their specific distinction of what constitutes a supervisor
under Title VII, it became that much more important for the organization to set clear lines that
specified the command structure. Failure to do this will now put the organization at risk for legal
issues because any ambiguity will leave the application of the supervisor title to the courts. The
structure needs to be clear and employees need to clearly know what powers they have (or do not
have) associated with their position.
Another issue of importance for the organization is training for all employees (but
especially for supervisors), primarily for the purposes of dealing with discrimination and
harassment claims. The training could emphasize what the supervisor should do in those
situations, while also teaching supervisors how to avoid retaliatory practices. Training should
also be provided for any employees who would likely be an avenue for dealing with a
discriminatory or harassment allegation. The training should also emphasize the importance of
dealing with allegations professionally and efficiently because that could be the difference
between a favorable or unfavorable ruling in court. The importance of the training is that it
shows “Good Faith” on the part of the organization in looking to eliminate workplace
harassment/ discrimination.
The final point of emphasis is that organizations should look to avoid complacency. They
should always be alert to the possibility that a discrimination or harassment allegation could

spring up at any moment. With that awareness, relevant persons should be ready to handle the
situation properly. The command structure and any training on how to handle these particular
situations should be constantly reviewed so that the organization will always be prepared for the
worst (“Supreme Court Rejects EEOC,” 2013).
Conclusion
Though this case is fairly recent, it is my belief that the ramifications of this ruling will
have legal, ethical, and social implications in the years to come. Vance had her claims denied by
all three courts where her case was argued and that is indicative of the Supreme Court’s stance
on the matter. The employee was denied in each case and because of the specific definition of a
supervisor, this is likely to be a trend that will continue to be seen in future cases.
The ruling narrows the definition of a supervisor for legal purposes, meaning that
strategic organizations will be able to set up complex authority structures where they can protect
themselves from facing too much liability from a legal perspective. Employees who are harassed
will also suffer as a result of the fact that an individual person is not likely to be able to provide
the compensation needed in order to rightfully remedy the offense. The organization is much
more likely to be able to provide adequate compensation.
The ruling also raises some ethical questions concerning organizations and how they
handle problems with their employees. As already mentioned, organizations can set up their
power structures so that they cannot be held responsible, despite the fact that they appointed the
individuals who are committing the offenses. As an overall result, despite all of the power in
organizations, they can remove the responsibility to handle internal problems without suffering a
decrease in power. Typically with much power comes much responsibility, but this ruling will
challenge that logic in the future.

From a social perspective, it is fair to ponder whether this ruling will impact society as a
whole; or even if the ruling logic is a reflection of the American society as it currently stands.
The tilt in power has leaned towards organizations over their employees and maybe the idea of
the bigger picture is being deemed as more important than the individual parts (or in this case
people). The ruling also challenges the notion that an individual with power has authority. Most
of the implications mentioned in this paper are not likely to be seen for a few years, but they are
likely to come and the American society should be ready to embrace the new legal, ethical, and
social implications that are presented by this case.

References
Brody, H. M., & Silver, T. L. (2013). Defining terms: What it means to be a supervisor and to
change clothes in employment cases at the Supreme Court. Employment Relations Today
(Wiley), 40(4), 61-66. doi:10.1002/ert.21435
Fask, S. (2013). Vance v. Ball State: Narrowing the definition of “Supervisors”. Labor &
Employment Law, 41(3), 7.
Lapp, R. B., & Olsen, C. A. (2013, July 9). What Vance v. Ball State tells us about employment
discrimination. Retrieved from http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/vance-v-
ball-state-tells-us-employment-discrimination-193208003.html
Supreme Court adopts narrow definition of “Supervisor” under Title VII – What this means for
Virginia employers. (2013, June 26). Retrieved from http://www.gentrylocke.com/1863
Supreme Court backs employers in Title VII cases. (cover story). (2013). HR Specialist:
California Employment Law, 7(8), 1-5.
Supreme Court rejects EEOC's broad definition of “supervisor”. (2013). HR Specialist:
Pennsylvania Employment Law, 8(9), 7.
Vance v. Ball State. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_556
Wolf, R. (2013, June 24). Court rules for business in discrimination cases. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/24/supreme-court-drug-
workplace-discrimination/2453675/

Case research paper (vance v ball state)

More Related Content

Similar to Case research paper (vance v ball state)

More from sedunham

Recently uploaded

Case research paper (vance v ball state)