Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

9 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

day-to-day  work  activities  should  trigger  vicarious  em-
ployer  liability.    The  following  illustrations,  none  of  them
hypothetical,  involve  in-charge  employees  of  the  kind  the 
Court today excludes from supervisory status.2 

Yasharay  Mack:  Yasharay  Mack,  an  African-American
woman,  worked  for  the  Otis  Elevator  Company  as  an
elevator mechanic’s helper at the Metropolitan Life Build-
ing in New York City.  James Connolly, the “mechanic in
charge” and the senior employee at the site, targeted Mack 
for  abuse.    He  commented  frequently  on  her  “fantastic 
ass,”  “luscious  lips,”  and  “beautiful  eyes,”  and,  using  de-
plorable racial epithets, opined that minorities and women 
did  not  “belong  in  the  business.”  Once,  he  pulled  her  on
his  lap,  touched  her  buttocks,  and  tried  to  kiss  her  while 
others looked on.  Connolly lacked authority to take tangi-
ble employment actions against mechanic’s helpers, but he 
did  assign  their  work,  control  their  schedules,  and  direct
the particulars of their workdays.  When he became angry
with  Mack,  for  example,  he  denied  her  overtime  hours. 
And  when  she  complained  about  the  mistreatment,  he
scoffed,  “I  get  away  with  everything.”    See  Mack,  326 
F. 3d,  at  120–121,  125–126  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted). 

Donna  Rhodes:  Donna  Rhodes,  a  seasonal  highway
maintainer for the Illinois Department of Transportation, 
was  responsible  for  plowing  snow  during  winter  months. 
Michael  Poladian  was  a  “Lead  Lead  Worker”  and  Matt 
Mara,  a  “Technician”  at  the  maintenance  yard  where
Rhodes  worked.    Both  men  assembled  plow  crews  and 
managed  the  work  assignments  of  employees  in  Rhodes’s
position,  but  neither  had  authority  to  hire,  fire,  promote, 

—————— 

2 The  illustrative  cases  reached  the  appellate  level  after  grants  of 
summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  employer.    Like  the  Courts  of  Ap-
peals in each case, I recount the facts in the light most favorable to the 
employee, the nonmoving party.