Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

supervisor  always  is  aided  by  the  agency  relation.”  El-
lerth,  supra,  at  763;  see  Faragher,  524  U. S.,  at  803–805. 
But  it  would  go  too  far,  we  found,  to  make  employers 
strictly liable whenever a  “supervisor” engages in harass­
ment that does not result in a tangible employment action,
and we therefore held that in such cases the employer may 
raise an affirmative defense.  Specifically, an employer can
mitigate or avoid liability by showing (1) that it exercised 
reasonable care  to  prevent  and  promptly  correct  any  har­
assing  behavior  and  (2)  that  the  plaintiff  unreasonably 
failed  to  take  advantage  of  any  preventive  or  corrective
opportunities that were provided.  Faragher, supra, at 807; 
Ellerth,  524  U. S.,  at  765.    This  compromise,  we  ex-
plained,  “accommodate[s]  the  agency  principles  of  vicari­
ous  liability  for  harm  caused  by  misuse  of  supervisory 
authority,  as  well  as  Title  VII’s  equally  basic  policies  of 
encouraging  forethought  by  employers  and  saving  action
by objecting employees.”  Id., at 764. 

The  dissenting  Members  of  the  Court  in  Ellerth  and 
Faragher  would  not  have  created  a  special  rule  for  cases
Instead,  they
involving  harassment  by  “supervisors.” 
would  have  held  that  an  employer  is  liable  for  any  em­
ployee’s  creation  of  a  hostile  work  environment  “if,  and 
only  if,  the  plaintiff  proves  that  the  employer  was  negli­
gent  in  permitting  the  [offending]  conduct  to  occur.” 
Ellerth,  supra,  at  767  (THOMAS, J.,  dissenting);  Faragher, 
supra, at 810 (same). 

C 
Under  Ellerth  and  Faragher,  it  is  obviously  important 
whether an alleged harasser is a “supervisor” or merely a
co-worker,  and the lower courts  have disagreed about the 
meaning  of  the  concept  of  a  supervisor  in  this  context.
Some  courts,  including  the  Seventh  Circuit  below,  have
held that an employee is not a supervisor unless he or she 
has  the  power  to  hire,  fire,  demote,  promote,  transfer,  or