Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIV. 

Opinion of the Court 

of  the  term  “supervisor”  is  misplaced,  and  her  contention
that  our  cases  require  the  EEOC’s  abstract  definition  is 
simply wrong. 

As we will explain, the framework set out in Ellerth and 

Faragher presupposes a clear distinction between supervi­
sors  and  co-workers.  Those  decisions  contemplate  a  uni­
tary category of supervisors, i.e., those employees with the
authority  to  make  tangible  employment  decisions.  There 
is  no  hint  in  either  decision  that  the  Court  had  in  mind 
two  categories  of  supervisors:  first,  those  who  have  such 
authority  and,  second,  those  who,  although  lacking  this
power, nevertheless have the ability to direct a co-worker’s
labor  to  some  ill-defined  degree.    On  the  contrary,  the 
Ellerth/Faragher  framework  is  one  under  which  supervi­
sory  status  can  usually  be  readily  determined,  generally 
by written documentation.  The approach recommended by
the  EEOC  Guidance,  by  contrast,  would  make  the  deter­
mination  of  supervisor  status  depend  on  a  highly  case­
specific evaluation of numerous factors.

The  Ellerth/Faragher  framework  represents  what  the
Court  saw  as  a  workable  compromise  between  the  aided­
in-the-accomplishment theory of vicarious liability and the 
legitimate  interests  of  employers.    The  Seventh  Circuit’s 
understanding of the concept of a “supervisor,” with which 
we  agree,  is  easily  workable;  it  can  be  applied  without
undue difficulty at both the summary judgment stage and 
at  trial.  The  alternative,  in  many  cases,  would  frustrate 
judges and confound jurors. 

A 
Petitioner contends that her expansive understanding of
the concept of a “supervisor” is supported by the meaning
of  the  word  in  general  usage  and  in  other  legal  contexts,
see  Brief  for  Petitioner  25–28,  but  this  argument  is  both 
incorrect on its own terms and, in any event, misguided.

In  general  usage,  the  term  “supervisor”  lacks  a  suffi­