Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

sidered  in  determining  whether  the  employer  was  negli­
gent.  The  nature  and  degree  of  authority  possessed  by 
harassing  employees  varies  greatly,  see  post,  9–11  (offer­
ing  examples),  and  as  we  explained  above,  the  test  pro­
posed by petitioner and the United States is ill equipped to 
deal  with  the  variety  of  situations  that  will  inevitably 
arise.  This variety presents no problem for the negligence 
standard, which is thought to provide adequate protection 
for  tort  plaintiffs  in  many  other  situations.    There  is  no 
reason  why  this  standard,  if  accompanied  by  proper  in­
structions, cannot provide the same service in the context 
at issue here. 

D 

The  dissent  argues  that  the  definition  of  a  supervisor 
that  we  now  adopt  is  out  of  touch  with  the  realities  of
the workplace, where individuals with the power to assign 
daily  tasks  are  often  regarded  by  other  employees  as 
supervisors.  See post, at 5, 8–12.  But in reality it is the
alternative  that  is  out  of  touch.    Particularly  in  modern
organizations  that  have  abandoned  a  highly  hierarchical 
management  structure,  it  is  common  for  employees  to 
have overlapping authority with respect to the assignment
of  work  tasks.    Members  of  a  team  may  each  have  the
responsibility for taking the lead with respect to a particu­
lar aspect of the work and thus may have the responsibil­
ity to direct each other in that area of responsibility. 

Finally, petitioner argues that tying supervisor status to 
the  authority  to  take  tangible  employment  actions  will 
encourage  employers  to  attempt  to  insulate  themselves
from  liability  for  workplace  harassment  by  empowering 
only a handful of individuals to take tangible employment
actions.  But a broad definition of “supervisor” is not nec­
essary to guard against this concern. 

As  an  initial  matter,  an  employer  will  always  be  liable 
when its negligence leads to the creation or continuation of