Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

5 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

fighting back.”).  In short, as Faragher and  Ellerth recog-
nized,  harassment  by  supervisors  is  more  likely  to  cause 
palpable  harm  and  to  persist  unabated  than  similar  con-
duct by fellow employees. 

II
  While  Faragher  and  Ellerth  differentiated  harassment 
by  supervisors  from  harassment  by  co-workers,  neither 
decision  gave  a  definitive  answer  to  the  question:  Who 
qualifies as a supervisor?  Two views have emerged.  One 
view,  in  line  with  the  EEOC’s  Guidance,  counts  as  a 
supervisor anyone with authority to take tangible employ-
ment actions or to  direct an employee’s daily work activi-
ties.  E.g.,  Mack  v.  Otis  Elevator  Co.,  326  F. 3d  116,  127 
(CA2  2003);  Whitten  v.  Fred’s,  Inc.,  601  F. 3d  231,  246 
(CA4  2010);  EEOC  Guidance  405:7654.  The  other  view 
ranks  as  supervisors  only  those  authorized  to  take  tangi-
ble  employment  actions.    E.g.,  Noviello  v.  Boston,  398 
F. 3d  76,  96  (CA1  2005);  Parkins  v.  Civil  Constructors  of 
Ill.,  Inc.,  163  F. 3d  1027,  1034  (CA7  1998);  Joens  v.  John 
Morrell & Co., 354 F. 3d 938, 940–941 (CA8 2004). 

Notably,  respondent  Ball  State  University  agreed  with 
petitioner Vance and the United States, as amicus curiae, 
that  the  tangible-employment-action-only  test  “does  not 
necessarily  capture  all  employees  who  may  qualify  as 
supervisors.”  Brief  for  Respondent  1.  “[V]icarious  liabil-
ity,”  Ball  State  acknowledged,  “also  may  be  triggered 
when the harassing employee has the authority to control 
the victim’s daily work activities in a way that materially 
enables the harassment.”  Id., at 1–2. 

The  different  view  taken  by  the  Court  today  is  out  of 
accord  with  the  agency  principles  that,  Faragher  and 
Ellerth affirmed, govern Title VII.  See supra, at 3–4.  It is 
blind to the realities of the workplace, and it discounts the
guidance of the EEOC, the agency Congress established to
interpret,  and  superintend  the  enforcement  of,  Title  VII.