Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

state  that  she  supervises  Kitchen  Assistants  and  Substi­
tutes and “[l]ead[s] and direct[s]” certain other employees, 
id., at 12–13.  But under the dissent’s preferred approach,
supervisor status hinges not on formal job titles or “paper
descriptions”  but  on  “specific  facts  about  the  working
relationship.”  Post,  at  20–21  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).

Turning  to  the  “specific  facts”  of  petitioner’s  and  Davis’ 
working  relationship,  there  is  simply  no  evidence  that 
Davis directed petitioner’s day-to-day activities.  The record 
indicates  that  Bill  Kimes  (the  general  manager  of  the 
Catering  Division)  and  the  chef  assigned  petitioner’s
daily  tasks,  which  were  given  to  her  on  “prep  lists.”    No. 
1:06–cv–1452–SEB–JMS,  2008  WL  4247836,  *7  (SD  Ind.,
Sept. 10, 2008); App. 430, 431.  The fact that Davis some­
times may have handed prep lists to petitioner, see id., at 
74,  is  insufficient  to  confer  supervisor  status,  see  App.  to
Pet.  for  Cert.  92a  (EEOC  Guidance).    And  Kimes—not 
Davis—set petitioner’s work schedule.  See App. 431.  See 
also id., at 212. 

Because  the  dissent  concedes  that  our  approach  in  this
case deprives petitioner of none of the protections that Ti- 
tle  VII  offers,  the  dissent’s  critique  is  based  on  nothing
more  than  a  hypothesis  as  to  how  our  approach  might
affect  the  outcomes  of  other  cases—cases  where  an  em­
ployee  who cannot  take  tangible  employment  actions,  but 
who  does  direct  the  victim’s  daily  work  activities  in  a
meaningful way, creates an unlawful hostile environment, 
and  yet  does  not  wield  authority  of  such  a  degree  and 
nature  that  the  employer  can  be  deemed  negligent  with 
respect  to  the  harassment.    We  are  skeptical  that  there
are a great number of such cases.  However, we are confi­
dent  that,  in  every  case,  the  approach  we  take  today  will
be more easily administrable than the approach advocated
by the dissent.