Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

therefore, it matters whether a harasser is a “supervisor”
or simply a co-worker. 

We hold that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes 

of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empow­
ered by the employer to take tangible employment actions 
against  the  victim,  and  we  therefore  affirm  the  judgment
of the Seventh Circuit. 

I 
Maetta  Vance,  an  African-American  woman,  began
working for Ball State University (BSU) in 1989 as a sub­
stitute  server  in  the  University  Banquet  and  Catering 
division of Dining Services.  In 1991, BSU promoted Vance 
to a part-time catering assistant position, and in 2007 she 
applied and was selected for a position as a full-time cater­
ing assistant.

Over  the  course  of  her  employment  with  BSU,  Vance
lodged  numerous  complaints  of  racial  discrimination  and 
retaliation,  but  most  of  those  incidents  are  not  at  issue 
here.  For  present  purposes,  the  only  relevant  incidents
concern Vance’s interactions with a fellow BSU employee, 
Saundra Davis. 

During the time in question, Davis, a white woman, was
employed  as  a  catering  specialist  in  the  Banquet  and
Catering  division.    The  parties  vigorously  dispute  the
precise  nature  and  scope  of  Davis’  duties,  but  they  agree
that  Davis  did  not  have  the  power  to  hire,  fire,  demote, 
promote,  transfer,  or  discipline  Vance.    See  No.  1:06–cv– 
1452–SEB–JMS,  2008  WL  4247836,  *12  (SD  Ind.,  Sept.
10,  2008)  (“Vance  makes  no  allegations  that  Ms.  Davis 
possessed  any  such  power”);  Brief  for  Petitioner  9–11 
(describing  Davis’  authority  over  Vance);  Brief  for  Re­
spondent  39  (“[A]ll  agree  that  Davis  lacked  the  author- 
ity  to  take  tangible  employments  [sic]  actions  against 
petitioner”).

In  late  2005  and  early  2006,  Vance  filed  internal  com­