Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

plaints  with  BSU  and  charges  with  the  Equal  Employ­
ment  Opportunity  Commission  (EEOC),  alleging  racial
harassment  and  discrimination,  and  many  of  these  com­
plaints and charges pertained to Davis.  646 F. 3d 461, 467 
(CA7  2011).  Vance  complained  that  Davis  “gave  her  a
hard  time  at  work  by  glaring  at  her,  slamming  pots  and 
pans around her, and intimidating her.”  Ibid.  She alleged
that  she  was  “left  alone  in  the  kitchen  with  Davis,  who 
smiled at her”; that Davis “blocked” her on an elevator and 
“stood  there  with  her  cart  smiling”;  and  that  Davis  often 
gave  her  “weird”  looks.  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).

Vance’s  workplace  strife  persisted  despite  BSU’s  at­
tempts  to  address  the  problem.    As  a  result,  Vance  filed 
this lawsuit in 2006 in the United States District Court for 
the  Southern  District  of  Indiana,  claiming,  among  other 
things,  that  she  had  been  subjected  to  a  racially  hostile 
work  environment  in  violation  of  Title  VII.  In  her  com­
plaint, she alleged that Davis was her supervisor and that 
BSU  was  liable  for  Davis’  creation  of  a  racially  hostile 
work  environment.    Complaint  in  No.  1:06–cv–01452–
SEB–TAB (SD Ind., Oct. 3, 2006), Dkt. No. 1, pp. 5–6.

Both  parties  moved  for  summary  judgment,  and  the
District  Court  entered  summary  judgment  in  favor  of
BSU.  2008 WL 4247836, at *1.  The court explained that 
BSU could not be held vicariously liable for Davis’ alleged
racial  harassment  because  Davis  could  not  “ ‘hire,  fire, 
demote, promote, transfer, or discipline’ ” Vance and, as a
result,  was  not  Vance’s  supervisor  under  the  Seventh 
Circuit’s  interpretation  of  that  concept.    See  id.,  at  *12 
(quoting Hall v. Bodine Elect. Co., 276 F. 3d 345, 355 (CA7 
2002)).  The  court  further  held  that  BSU  could  not  be 
liable in negligence because it responded reasonably to the
incidents of which it was aware.  2008 WL 4247836, *15. 
The  Seventh  Circuit  affirmed.    646  F. 3d  461.    It  ex­
plained that, under its settled precedent, supervisor status