Post by jeffolie on Jun 24, 2013 11:03:48 GMT -6
Justices narrow scope for workplace discrimination
June 24, 2013
Story Highlights
"Supervisor" must have authority to hire and fire
Justices rule against Ball State University worker
Liberals on court denounce decision
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that workplace discrimination can only be pinned on a supervisor who has the ability to hire and fire, rather than merely direct work assignments.
The 5-4 ruling is a victory for Ball State University in Indiana, which had been sued by an African-American kitchen worker who claimed she was harassed by co-workers. Justice Samuel Alito said his ruling upholds the definition of a supervisor already used in several parts of the country and "will not thwart recovery from workplace harassment."
But it took the justices seven months to reach their conclusion, and only with an angry warning from the court's liberal wing that the decision would do just that. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling shows a "disregard for the realities of the workplace," and she urged Congress to intervene.
The issue before court was important, with the potential to set a broad precedent: What constitutes a "supervisor" when it comes to allegations of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
But from the start, the facts got in the way. Maetta Vance, the only African American in Ball State University's dining and catering department, alleged racial discrimination by her supervisors. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals defined supervisor as someone with the power to hire, fire, promote, transfer or discipline workers -- and said Vance's targets fell short of that definition.
Further complicating the case, not even the attorney for Ball State agreed with the lower court's rigid definition of a supervisor. But during oral arguments in November, many justices clearly were concerned about redefining the term and giving birth to a plethora of new lawsuits.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Alito and Antonin Scalia quibbled with what type of workplace behavior would constitute discrimination if the appeals court's definition wasn't upheld. Being forced to listen to country or hard rock music? Being forced to chop onions all day -- or to chop anything all day, for that matter?
On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan noted that under the appeals court's definition, even professors who abuse their secretaries wouldn't be subject to employment discrimination lawsuits if they were not responsible for hiring and firing.
Little wonder, then, that the case had been pending longer than all but Fisher v. University of Texas, the major affirmative action case that was argued in October and decided Monday as well. They were the only two cases remaining from 2012 without decisions.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/24/supreme-court-supervisor-employment-discrimination/2424871/
June 24, 2013
Story Highlights
"Supervisor" must have authority to hire and fire
Justices rule against Ball State University worker
Liberals on court denounce decision
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that workplace discrimination can only be pinned on a supervisor who has the ability to hire and fire, rather than merely direct work assignments.
The 5-4 ruling is a victory for Ball State University in Indiana, which had been sued by an African-American kitchen worker who claimed she was harassed by co-workers. Justice Samuel Alito said his ruling upholds the definition of a supervisor already used in several parts of the country and "will not thwart recovery from workplace harassment."
But it took the justices seven months to reach their conclusion, and only with an angry warning from the court's liberal wing that the decision would do just that. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling shows a "disregard for the realities of the workplace," and she urged Congress to intervene.
The issue before court was important, with the potential to set a broad precedent: What constitutes a "supervisor" when it comes to allegations of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
But from the start, the facts got in the way. Maetta Vance, the only African American in Ball State University's dining and catering department, alleged racial discrimination by her supervisors. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals defined supervisor as someone with the power to hire, fire, promote, transfer or discipline workers -- and said Vance's targets fell short of that definition.
Further complicating the case, not even the attorney for Ball State agreed with the lower court's rigid definition of a supervisor. But during oral arguments in November, many justices clearly were concerned about redefining the term and giving birth to a plethora of new lawsuits.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Alito and Antonin Scalia quibbled with what type of workplace behavior would constitute discrimination if the appeals court's definition wasn't upheld. Being forced to listen to country or hard rock music? Being forced to chop onions all day -- or to chop anything all day, for that matter?
On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan noted that under the appeals court's definition, even professors who abuse their secretaries wouldn't be subject to employment discrimination lawsuits if they were not responsible for hiring and firing.
Little wonder, then, that the case had been pending longer than all but Fisher v. University of Texas, the major affirmative action case that was argued in October and decided Monday as well. They were the only two cases remaining from 2012 without decisions.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/24/supreme-court-supervisor-employment-discrimination/2424871/