October Term 2012 · Docket 11-556

Who counts as a supervisor under Title VII?

The dispute centers on whether an employee with limited authority over daily tasks qualifies as a supervisor for liability purposes.

Official caption
Vance v. Ball State Univ.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Ortiz argued the case concerns who counts as a supervisor. He stated the side that brought the case's position on the legal standard.

    Mr. Garre argued the lower court's judgment should stand. He claimed the record showed the employees lacked supervisory authority.

    Ms. Davis described specific incidents. She mentioned an elevator block and alleged use of racial slurs.

    Justice Alito questioned the clarity of the proposed legal standard. He noted courts might struggle to apply it consistently.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case asks how much power an employee needs to be considered a supervisor. The lower court found the accused employee lacked this power. the side that brought the case argues this standard is too narrow.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 26, 2012.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the lower court's finding overturned. They argue the accused employee had enough power to be a supervisor.

the opposing side wants the lower court's finding kept. They argue the accused employee lacked the necessary supervisory power.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that assigning daily tasks makes an employee a supervisor. They claim this standard captures real workplace power.

the opposing side argues that only employees with major authority are supervisors. They claim the side that brought the case's standard is too broad.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked for concrete examples of supervisory authority in the record.

Justice Alito asked for a definition of the materially augments rule. He asked what assigning daily tasks must achieve to count as supervisory power.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who counts as a supervisor under Title VII. It determines when employers face liability for employee harassment. It clarifies the line between supervisors and regular employees.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON