Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 11–556 
_________________ 

MAETTA VANCE, PETITIONER v. BALL STATE
 
UNIVERSITY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 24, 2013] 

JUSTICE  GINSBURG,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
In  Faragher  v.  Boca  Raton,  524  U. S.  775  (1998),  and 
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998),
this Court held that an employer can be vicariously liable 
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for harass-
ment  by  an  employee  given  supervisory  authority  over
subordinates.  In  line  with  those  decisions,  in  1999,  the 
Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Commission  (EEOC)
provided enforcement guidance “regarding employer liabil-
ity for harassment by supervisors based on sex, race, color, 
religion, national origin, age, disability, or protected activ-
ity.”  EEOC,  Guidance  on  Vicarious  Employer  Liability
For  Unlawful  Harassment  by  Supervisors,  8  BNA  FEP
Manual  405:7651  (Feb.  2003)  (hereinafter  EEOC  Guid-
ance).  Addressing  who  qualifies  as  a  supervisor,  the
EEOC  answered:  (1)  an  individual  authorized  “to  under-
take  or  recommend  tangible  employment  decisions  affect-
ing  the  employee,”  including  “hiring,  firing,  promoting,
demoting,  and  reassigning  the  employee”;  or  (2)  an  indi-
vidual  authorized  “to  direct  the  employee’s  daily  work
activities.”  Id., at 405:7654. 

The  Court  today  strikes  from  the  supervisory  category
employees  who  control  the  day-to-day  schedules  and  as-
signments  of  others,  confining  the  category  to  those  for-