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

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

discipline  the  victim.  E.g.,  646  F. 3d,  at  470;  Noviello  v. 
Boston, 398 F. 3d 76, 96 (CA1 2005); Weyers v. Lear Opera-
tions  Corp.,  359  F. 3d  1049,  1057  (CA8  2004).    Other 
courts  have  substantially  followed  the  more  open-ended
approach  advocated  by  the  EEOC’s  Enforcement  Guid­
ance, which ties supervisor status to the ability to exercise 
significant  direction  over  another’s  daily  work.    See,  e.g., 
Mack  v.  Otis  Elevator  Co.,  326  F. 3d  116,  126–127  (CA2 
2003); Whitten v. Fred’s, Inc., 601 F. 3d 231, 245–247 (CA4
2010); EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer
Liability for Unlawful  Harassment by Supervisors (1999), 
1999 WL 33305874, *3 (hereinafter EEOC Guidance). 

We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict.  567 U. S. 

___ (2012). 

III 
We  hold  that  an  employer  may  be  vicariously  liable  for
an  employee’s  unlawful  harassment  only  when  the  em­
ployer  has  empowered  that  employee  to  take  tangible
employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect a “sig­
nificant  change  in  employment  status,  such  as  hiring,
firing,  failing  to  promote,  reassignment  with  significantly 
different  responsibilities,  or  a  decision  causing  a  signifi­
cant change in benefits.”  Ellerth, supra, at 761.  We reject
the nebulous definition of a “supervisor” advocated in the
EEOC  Guidance4  and  substantially  adopted  by  several 
courts  of  appeals.  Petitioner’s  reliance  on  colloquial  uses 

—————— 

4 The  United  States  urges  us  to  defer  to  the  EEOC  Guidance.    Brief 
for United States as Amicus Curiae 26–29 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & 
Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944)).  But to do so would be proper only if the 
EEOC Guidance has the power to persuade, which “depend[s] upon the 
thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, 
[and]  its  consistency  with  earlier  and  later  pronouncements.”    Id.,  at 
140.  For the reasons explained below, we do not find the EEOC Guid­
ance persuasive.