Thanks to the Supreme Court: Narrower Definition of "Supervisor" Provides Opportunities for Employers

By Richard D. Alaniz 
 
On June 24, 2013, the US Supreme Court narrowed the definition of who qualifies as a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment cases. This holding is a significant win for employers and affords opportunities for employers to limit their liability when harassment claims are made.
 
Overview of Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. In a practical sense, workplace harassment is generated by an individual - whether a coworker, supervisor, manager, etc. There must be someone engaging in harassing conduct in order for there to be workplace harassment. And under Title VII, the status of that person affects an employer's liability.
 
This makes sense. After all, if an employee is harassed at the workplace by a fellow employee and no one else ever knows about it - no supervisor, manager, or human resources personnel - the company will be in no position to take any action. For this reason, harassment promulgated by a coworker has been judged under a general negligence standard. Only if the employer knew (or should have known) of the harassment and failed to take appropriate action can the employer be held liable. Such a rule is only fair.
 
However, when a supervisor is the one engaging in the harassment, courts have taken a different approach. In such a situation, courts have recognized that supervisors have considerably more leverage over employees than coworkers. A supervisor has the power to hire, fire, deny a promotion, reassign an employee's duties and responsibilities, reduce or change an employee's benefits, and generally change an employee's employment status. Such power is provided to the supervisor by the employer, and, as such, courts have held that supervisor harassment ought to be held to a different standard than coworker harassment. In fact, in some circumstances the company may be held strictly liable when a supervisor engages in harassment, regardless of whether the company was aware of the harassment.
 
As originally articulated, holding a supervisor to a higher standard only made sense. However, many courts, and notably the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is responsible for enforcing Title VII, adopted a significantly expanded definition of a supervisor, thus exposing employers to increased potential liability. The EEOC advocated a somewhat nebulous definition of supervisor that focused on the amount of control the individual had over the victim of harassment. Such a definition proved difficult to apply, created confusion, and added unnecessary complexity to harassment cases. Most important to employers, it also transformed many individuals not traditionally thought of as supervisors into supervisors for liability purposes.

You may like these other stories...

By Cathy Stopyra and Todd SimmensUnderpayment interest, refund interest, and penalties charged to businesses are just a few of the considerations the IRS calculates when determining taxation for a given company. Though...
FASB mulling a revamped income statementDavid M. Katz of CFO wrote on Tuesday that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is in the early stages of researching whether to launch a project aimed at improving and...
You have a big presentation forthcoming that might enable you to land a huge client for your firm. Are you sufficiently relaxed to be at your best? Let me offer a story and some observations that drive home a crucial point....

Upcoming CPE Webinars

Jul 31
In this session Excel expert David Ringstrom helps beginners get up to speed in Microsoft Excel. However, even experienced Excel users will learn some new tricks, particularly when David discusses under-utilized aspects of Excel.
Aug 5
This webcast will focus on accounting and disclosure policies for various types of consolidations and business combinations.