Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 27

24 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

is  particularly  high  where  the  jury  is  faced  with  instruc­
tions  on  alternative  theories  of  liability  under  which  dif­
ferent  parties  bear  the  burden  of  proof.14   By  simplifying 
the  process  of  determining  who  is  a  supervisor  (and  by 
extension,  which  liability  rules  apply  to  a  given  set  of 
facts), the approach that we take will help to ensure that 
juries  return  verdicts  that  reflect  the  application  of  the 
correct legal rules to the facts. 

Contrary to the dissent’s suggestions, see post, at 14, 17, 
this  approach  will  not  leave  employees  unprotected 
against harassment by co-workers who possess the author­
ity  to  inflict  psychological  injury  by  assigning  unpleasant 
tasks or by altering the work environment in objectionable 
ways.  In  such  cases,  the  victims  will  be  able  to  prevail 
simply  by  showing  that  the  employer  was  negligent  in 
permitting  this  harassment  to  occur,  and  the  jury  should 
be  instructed  that  the  nature  and  degree  of  authority 
wielded  by  the  harasser  is  an  important  factor  to  be  con­

—————— 

ual  Disparate  Treatment:  Thoroughness  or  Simplicity?  12  Lab.  Law. 
399,  419  (1997)  (concluding  that  more  straightforward  instructions 
“provid[e] the jury with clearer guidance of their mission”); Davis, The 
Stumbling  Three-Step,  Burden-Shifting  Approach  in  Employment 
Discrimination  Cases,  61  Brook.  L. Rev. 703,  742–743  (1995)  (discuss­
ing  potential  for  juror  confusion  in  the  face  of  complex  instructions); 
Note,  Toward  a  Motivating  Factor  Test  for  Individual  Disparate 
Treatment  Claims,  100  Mich.  L. Rev.  234,  262–273  (2001)  (discussing 
the  need  for  a  simpler  approach  to  jury  instructions  in  employment 
discrimination cases). 

14 Cf.  Struve,  Shifting  Burdens:  Discrimination  Law  Through  the
Lens  of  Jury  Instructions,  51  Boston  College  L. Rev.  279,  330–334 
(2010)  (arguing  that  unnecessary  confusion  arises  when  a  jury  must 
resolve different claims under different burden frameworks); Monahan, 
Cabrera  v.  Jakabovitz—A  Common-Sense  Proposal  for  Formulating 
Jury  Instructions  Regarding  Shifting  Burdens  of  Proof  in  Disparate 
Treatment  Discrimination  Cases,  5  Geo.  Mason  U.  C.  R.  L.  J.  55,  76 
(1994)  (“Any  jury  instruction  that  attempts  to  shift  the  burden  of  per­
suasion on closely related issues is never likely to be successful”).