Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

8 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

but  they  were  “responsible  for  the  day-to-day  supervi-
sion” of the workplace and for overseeing employee shifts. 
Suders  v.  Easton,  325  F. 3d  432,  450,  n. 11  (CA3  2003). 
Describing  the  harassing  employees  as  the  complainant’s 
“supervisors,”  the  Court  proceeded  to  evaluate  the  com-
plainant’s  constructive  discharge  claim  under  the  Ellerth 
and Faragher framework.  Suders, 542 U. S., at 134, 140– 
141. 

It  is  true,  as  the  Court  says,  ante,  at  15–17,  and  n. 11, 
that  Faragher  and  later  cases  did  not  squarely  resolve 
whether  an  employee  without  power  to  take  tangible  em-
ployment actions may nonetheless qualify as a supervisor.
But  in  laboring  to  establish  that  Silverman’s  supervi-
sor status, undisputed in Faragher, is not dispositive here, 
the  Court  misses  the  forest  for  the  trees.    Faragher  illus-
trates an all-too-plain reality: A supervisor with authority 
to  control  subordinates’  daily  work  is  no  less  aided  in  his
harassment  than  is  a  supervisor  with  authority  to  fire, 
demote,  or  transfer.    That  Silverman  could  threaten  Far-
agher  with  toilet-cleaning  duties  while  Terry  could  orally 
reprimand  her  was  inconsequential  in  Faragher,  and 
properly  so.  What  mattered  was  that  both  men  took  ad-
vantage  of  the  power  vested  in  them  as  agents  of  Boca
Raton to facilitate their abuse.  See Faragher, 524 U. S., at 
801  (Silverman  and  Terry  “implicitly  threaten[ed]  to  mis-
use  their  supervisory  powers  to  deter  any  resistance  or
complaint.”).  And  when,  assisted  by  an  agency  relation-
ship,  in-charge  superiors  like  Silverman  perpetuate  a 
discriminatory  work  environment,  our  decisions  have 
appropriately held the employer vicariously liable, subject 
to  the  above-described  affirmative  defense.  See  supra,  at 
3–4. 

B 
Workplace  realities  fortify  my  conclusion  that  harass-
ment  by  an  employee  with  power  to  direct  subordinates’