Ball State recently gave their oral arguments in a Supreme Court case that is considering the standard for defining a supervisor.
Maetta Vance, a former Ball State employee, claimed that she was harassed by another employee. This employee had the power to tell her what to do and how to clock her hours.
She then sued the university for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Vance said she was the only African American working in her department.
In Sept. 2008, the case was dismissed without hearing oral arguments and the Southern District of Indiana District Court ruled in favor of Ball State. The Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the university in June of 2011.
The matter in question is whether a supervisor is correctly defined as an individual with the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline employees.
In June 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the appropriate definition of a supervisor.
“Last Monday we presented to the Court our arguments that the employee at issue was not a supervisor of Ms. Vance,” Tony Proudfoot, associate vice president of Marketing and Communications, said in an email.
“The U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court similarly stating that the employee would fail to qualify as Ms. Vance’s supervisor ‘even under the broader interpretation of that term applied by certain courts of appeals and by the EEOC [Equal Opportunity Employment Commission],’” Proudfoot said.
The EEOC and other federal circuit courts currently define a supervisor as an individual with the authority to direct an employee’s daily work activities.
