Supreme Court struggles over workplace harassment standard

(Reuters) – Fourteen years after deciding that employers can be liable for workplace harassment by supervisors they employ, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared to struggle with an issue left unanswered: who qualifies as a supervisor.

A decision in the case against Ball State University, brought by a black catering assistant named Maetta Vance, could clarify how readily harassment victims may hold deeper-pocketed employers accountable under federal law.

Several justices questioned where best to draw the line, a task made harder by the agreement of the parties arguing in court that the standard set by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in dismissing Vance’s case was too strict.

In that June 2011 ruling written by Judge Diane Wood, considered one of its more liberal members, the 7th Circuit said that to be a supervisor, an employee must have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline the victim.

Three federal appeals courts have adopted this standard, while three others have said day-to-day oversight is enough to result in liability. A definition proposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission resembles the latter standard.

At Monday’s oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested to Vance’s lawyer Daniel Ortiz that the 7th Circuit standard might prove workable.

To continue reading, click here.