Ball State came out on the winning end of a Supreme Court decision regarding workplace discrimination this week.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Ball State in Vance v. Ball State, in which it found the university responded appropriately to complaints of a hostile work environment in an employee-to-employee setting.
The Supreme Court’s dominant question was whether or not to uphold the previous definition of a supervisor in workplace discrimination cases. They did uphold previous court’s interpretation of a supervisor which, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is someone who has the power to make hiring and firing decisions about employees.
In situations of workplace discrimination, an organization is liable if superiors within the organization are practicing discrimination, or if complaints of discrimination on an employee-to-employee level are not met with proper investigation and action.
Vice president of communications Tony Proudfoot expressed Ball State’s happiness with the outcome of the “long and complex” case in a statement Monday.
“Ball State remains actively committed to diversity and maintaining a welcoming community for everyone,” Proudfoot said. “Today’s decision [reiterates] Ball State promptly investigated each complaint and properly calibrated its response to the results of the investigation and the severity of the alleged conduct.”
In Vance v. Ball State, a Ball State catering employee, Maetta Vance, alleged a fellow coworker, Saundra Davis, subjected her to a racially hostile work environment in 2005.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual ... because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
In September 2008, the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana dismissed the case without hearing oral arguments. In June 2011, United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on November 26, 2012. Seven months later, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
“We hold that an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim. There is no evidence that BSU empowered Davis to take any tangible employment actions against Vance,” Alito wrote in the majority.
In her dissent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she regretted the Court’s narrow definition of a supervisor and called on Congress to intervene the “wayward interpretation of Title VII.”
“The ball is once again in Congress’ court to correct the error into which this Court has fallen, and to restore the robust protections against workplace harassment the Court weakens today,” she said.
Proudfoot reiterated in the circuit, U.S. appellate and Supreme Court, Ball State was found to have responded appropriately and acted under established practices regarding discrimination in the workplace.
“The university does not tolerate discrimination,” Proudfoot said. “We have formal and informal procedures in place to address concerns, should they arise.”
