Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

CFR  §§9701.511(a)(2),  (3)  (2012)  (referring  to  a  supervi­
sor’s  authority  to  “hire,  assign,  and  direct  employees  . . .
and  [t]o  lay  off  and  retain  employees,  or  to  suspend,  re- 

—————— 

right to hire or fire, discipline, or make effective recommendations with 
respect to such action.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1947). 
Cf. NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U. S. 571, 
586  (1994)  (HCRA)  (GINSBURG,  J.,  dissenting)  (“Through  case-by-case
adjudication, the Board has sought to distinguish individuals exercising
the level of control that truly places them in the ranks of management, 
from  highly  skilled  employees,  whether  professional  or  technical,  who 
perform, incidentally to their skilled work, a limited supervisory role”).
Accordingly, the NLRB has interpreted the NLRA’s statutory definition
of supervisor more narrowly than its plain language might permit.  See, 
e.g.,  Connecticut  Humane  Society,  supra,  at  *39  (an  employee  who
evaluates others is not a supervisor unless the evaluation “affect[s] the 
wages and the job status of the employee evaluated”); In re CGLM, Inc., 
350  NLRB  974,  977  (2007)  (“ ‘If  any  authority  over  someone  else,  no
matter  how  insignificant  or  infrequent,  made  an  employee  a  super- 
visor,  our  industrial  composite  would  be  predominantly  supervisory. 
Every order-giver is not a supervisor.  Even the traffic director tells the 
president  of  the  company  where  to  park  his  car’ ”  (quoting  NLRB  v. 
Security Guard Serv., Inc., 384 F. 2d 143, 151 (CA5 1967))).  The NLRA 
therefore does not define the term “supervisor” as broadly as petitioner 
suggests.

To  be  sure,  the  NLRA  may  in  some  instances  define  “supervisor”
more  broadly  than  we  define  the  term  in  this  case.    But  those  differ­
ences  reflect  the  NLRA’s  unique  purpose,  which  is  to  preserve  the 
balance of power between labor and management, see HCRA, supra, at 
573  (explaining  that  Congress  amended  the  NLRA  to  exclude  supervi­
sors  in  order  to  address  the  “imbalance  between  labor  and  manage­
ment”  that  resulted  when  “supervisory  employees  could  organize  as 
part  of  bargaining  units  and  negotiate  with  the  employer”).    That 
purpose  is  inapposite  in  the  context  of  Title  VII,  which  focuses  on 
eradicating discrimination.  An employee may have a sufficient degree
of authority over subordinates such that Congress has decided that the 
employee should not participate with lower level employees in the same
collective-bargaining unit (because, for example, a higher level employ­
ee will pursue his own interests at the expense of lower level employees’ 
interests),  but  that  authority  is  not  necessarily  sufficient  to  merit 
heightened  liability  for  the  purposes  of  Title  VII.    The  NLRA’s  defini­
tion of supervisor therefore is not controlling in this context.