Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 25

22 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

ity to make this assignment would be enough.  Tr. of Oral 
Arg.  23.  He  later  qualified  that  answer  by  saying  that  it
would be necessary to “know how much of the day’s work
[was] encompassed by cleaning the toilets.”  Id., at 23–24. 
He  did  not  explain  what  percentage  of  the  day’s  work 
(50%, 25%, 10%?) would suffice. 

The  Government  attorney’s  inability  to  provide  a  de-
finitive  answer  to  this  question  was  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence  of  the  vague  standard  that  the  Government 
asks  us  to  adopt.    Key  components  of  that  standard—
“sufficient”  authority,  authority  to  assign  more  than  a
“limited number of tasks,” and authority that is exercised 
more than “occasionally”—have no clear meaning.  Apply­
ing  these  standards  would  present  daunting  problems  for 
the lower federal courts and for juries. 

Under  the  definition  of  “supervisor”  that  we  adopt  to­
day, the question of supervisor status, when contested, can
very often be resolved as a matter of law before trial.  The 
elimination  of  this  issue  from  the  trial  will  focus  the  ef­
forts of the parties, who will be able to present their cases 
in a way that conforms to the framework that the jury will
apply.  The  plaintiff  will  know  whether  he  or  she  must 
prove  that  the  employer  was  negligent  or  whether  the
employer will have the burden of proving the elements of 
the  Ellerth/Faragher  affirmative  defense.  Perhaps  even
more  important,  the  work  of  the  jury,  which  is  inevitably
complicated  in  employment  discrimination  cases,  will  be
simplified.    The  jurors  can  be  given  preliminary  instruc­
tions  that  allow  them  to  understand,  as  the  evidence 
comes  in,  how  each  item  of  proof  fits  into  the  framework
that  they  will  ultimately  be  required  to  apply.    And  even 
where the issue of supervisor status cannot be eliminated 
from the trial (because there are genuine factual disputes
about  an  alleged  harasser’s  authority  to  take  tangible
employment  actions),  this  preliminary  question  is  rela- 
tively straightforward.