Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 47

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

13 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

and  Davidson  Cty.,  555  U. S.  271,  276  (2009)  (EEOC 
guidelines  merited  Skidmore  deference);  Federal  Express 
Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U. S. 389, 399–403 (2008) (same); 
Meritor, 477 U. S., at 65 (same).4 

The EEOC’s definition of supervisor reflects the agency’s
“informed judgment” and “body of experience” in enforcing
Title  VII.  Id.,  at  65  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).
For  14  years,  in  enforcement  actions  and  litigation, 
the  EEOC  has  firmly  adhered  to  its  definition.    See  Brief 
for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  28  (citing  numerous
briefs  in  the  Courts  of  Appeals  setting  forth  the  EEOC’s
understanding).

In  developing  its  definition  of  supervisor,  the  EEOC 
paid  close  attention  to  the  Faragher  and  Ellerth  frame-
work.    An  employer  is  vicariously  liable  only  when  the
authority it has delegated enables actionable harassment,
the  EEOC  recognized.    EEOC  Guidance  405:7654.    For 
that  reason,  a  supervisor’s  authority  must  be  “of  a  suffi-
cient magnitude so as to assist the harasser . . . in carry-
ing  out  the  harassment.”  Ibid.  Determining  whether  an
employee  wields  sufficient  authority  is  not  a  mechanical 
inquiry, the EEOC explained; instead, specific facts about
the employee’s job function are critical.  Id., at 405:7653 to 
405:7654.  Thus,  an  employee  with  authority  to  increase 
another’s  workload  or  assign  undesirable  tasks  may  rank
as  a  supervisor,  for  those  powers  can  enable  harassment. 
Id.,  at  405:7654.  On  the  other  hand,  an  employee  “who
directs  only  a  limited  number  of  tasks  or  assignments” 

—————— 

4 Respondent’s  amici  maintain  that  the  EEOC  Guidance is  ineligible 
for  deference  under  Skidmore  v.  Swift  &  Co.,  323  U. S.  134  (1944), 
because  it  interprets  Faragher  and  Burlington  Industries,  Inc.  v. 
Ellerth,  524  U. S.  742  (1998),  not  the  text  of  Title  VII.    See  Brief  for 
Society  for  Human  Resource  Management  et al.  11–16.    They  are 
mistaken.    The  EEOC  Guidance  rests  on the  employer liability  frame-
work  set  forth  in  Faragher  and  Ellerth,  but  both  the  framework  and 
EEOC Guidance construe the term “agent” in 42 U. S. C. §2000e(b).