Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

requires “ ‘the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, trans­
fer, or discipline an employee.’ ”  Id., at 470 (quoting Hall, 
supra,  at  355).    The  court  concluded  that  Davis  was  not 
Vance’s supervisor and thus that Vance could not recover 
from BSU unless she could prove negligence.  Finding that
BSU was not negligent with respect to Davis’ conduct, the 
court affirmed.  646 F. 3d, at 470–473. 

II
 
A 

Title  VII  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1964  makes  it  “an
unlawful  employment  practice  for  an  employer  . . .  to
discriminate  against  any  individual  with  respect  to  his 
compensation,  terms,  conditions,  or  privileges  of  employ­
ment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin.”  42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1).  This pro­
vision  obviously  prohibits  discrimination  with  respect  to
employment  decisions  that  have  direct  economic  conse­
quences,  such  as  termination,  demotion,  and  pay  cuts.
But not long after Title VII was enacted, the lower courts
held  that  Title  VII  also  reaches  the  creation  or  perpetua­
tion of a discriminatory work environment. 

In  the  leading  case  of  Rogers  v.  EEOC,  454  F. 2d  234 
(1971), the Fifth Circuit recognized a cause of action based 
on this theory.  See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 
477  U. S.  57,  65–66  (1986)  (describing  development  of 
hostile  environment  claims  based  on  race).  The  Rogers
court  reasoned  that  “the  phrase  ‘terms,  conditions,  or 
privileges  of  employment’  in  [Title  VII]  is  an  expansive
concept  which  sweeps  within  its  protective  ambit  the
practice  of  creating  a  working  environment  heavily
charged  with  ethnic  or  racial  discrimination.”    454  F. 2d, 
at 238.  The court observed that “[o]ne can readily envision
working  environments  so  heavily  polluted  with  discrimi­
nation  as  to  destroy  completely  the  emotional  and  psy­
chological  stability  of  minority  group  workers.”    Ibid.