Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 23

20 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

adopt today is one that can be readily applied.  In a great
many  cases,  it  will  be  known  even  before  litigation  is 
commenced  whether  an  alleged  harasser  was  a  supervi­
sor,  and  in  others,  the  alleged  harasser’s  status  will  be­
come clear to both sides after discovery.  And once this is 
known,  the  parties  will  be  in  a  position  to  assess  the 
strength of  a case and to explore the possibility of resolv­
ing  the  dispute.    Where  this  does  not  occur,  supervisor 
status will generally be capable of resolution at summary 
judgment.  By contrast, under the approach advocated by
petitioner  and  the  EEOC,  supervisor  status  would  very
often be murky—as this case well illustrates.12 

According to petitioner, the record shows that Davis, her 
alleged harasser, wielded enough authority to qualify as a 
supervisor.  Petitioner  points  in  particular  to  Davis’  job 
description,  which  gave  her  leadership  responsibilities, 
and to evidence that Davis at times led or directed Vance 
and  other  employees  in  the  kitchen.    See  Brief  for  Peti­
tioner  42–43  (citing  record);  Reply  Brief  22–23  (same). 
The United States, on the other hand, while applying the 
same  open-ended  test  for  supervisory  status,  reaches  the 
opposite  conclusion.  At  least  on  the  present  record,  the 
United States tells us, Davis fails to qualify as a supervi­
sor.  Her job description, in the Government’s view, is not 
dispositive, and the Government adds that it would not be 
enough for petitioner to show that Davis “occasionally took 
the lead in the kitchen.”  Brief for United States as Amicus 
Curiae 31 (U. S. Brief). 
This  disagreement 

is  hardly  surprising  since  the 

—————— 

12 The  dissent  attempts  to  find  ambiguities  in  our  holding,  see  post, 
at  15–16,  and  n. 5,  but  it  is  indisputable  that  our  holding  is  orders  of 
magnitude  clearer  than  the  nebulous  standard  it  would  adopt.   Em­
ployment  discrimination  cases  present  an  almost  unlimited  number
of  factual  variations,  and  marginal  cases  are  inevitable  under  any 
standard.