On Monday, November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States heard an oral argument almost wholly focused on the definition of a workplace “supervisor” in the context of job harassment cases.  The definition is important because when a supervisor harasses a worker, the employer becomes automatically liable.  However, if the harasser is only a co-worker, the harassed must show that the employer was negligent in following up with complaints of the harassment in order to prevail against the employer.  The case presents a very interesting debate for the Justices because the federal appeals courts are split on the definition of supervisor, and no parties in this case, Vance v. Ball State University, are arguing for the defense’s definition.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows some lawsuits based on workplace discrimination if the challenged conduct was that of a supervisor.  However, the federal appeals courts currently disagree on the definition of supervisor.  The Seventh Circuit, a federal appeals court based in Chicago, which recently dismissed the action, along with two other appeals courts, defines supervisor narrowly as employees that have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline.  In contrast, three other federal appeals courts define supervisor more broadly as employees with day-to-day oversight in directing a worker’s activities.

Argument in the case has proven interesting as no parties are arguing for the Seventh Circuit’s narrow definition.  Business organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have defended the narrow definition in supporting briefs, saying such definition restricts employer liability and decreases the chances for frivolous litigation.  In contrast, defense counsel argues that the narrow definition is just that, too narrow, but disagrees with plaintiff’s counsel on just how flexible the definition of supervisor should be.

Any definition ultimately settled upon is likely to have significant effect on employers’ potential liability for the actions of their supervisors and employee’s legal avenues for recourse.