A slight reprieve

Recent Supreme Court rulings have made it more difficult for employers to be liable for harassment

In June 2013, the Supreme Court issued two decisions that make it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to pursue federal harassment and retaliation claims against employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Vance v. Ball State University, the court held an employee is considered a "supervisor" for purposes of determining an employer's vicarious liability for workplace harassment only if the employee is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the alleged victim (defined as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassigning with "significantly different responsibilities" or causing a "significant change in benefits").

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the court held claims alleging an employer retaliated against an employee for complaining about or opposing discrimination under Title VII must be analyzed under a "but-for" causation standard, meaning the employee must prove "but-for" his or her opposition to an employer's alleged discriminatory conduct, the retaliatory adverse employment action would not have occurred.

The Vance decision

Log in or register for FREE access to this article and other Professional Roofing online content.

Not a professionalroofing.net user?

Register now for free access
  • Full access to every article
  • Online Web exclusive information
  • Photo gallery
  • Breaking news
  • Online classified ads

Already a professionalroofing.net user?

User name:

Password:

 


Forgot Your Password?