View Single Post
Old 06-24-2013, 12:02 PM   #44
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Reuters
Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley
Jun 24, 2013

UPDATE 2-U.S. justices rule against college worker in harassment case
Quote:
<snip>The court had in 1998 said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
let harassment victims hold their employers responsible for improper conduct by a supervisor,
but never defined exactly what a supervisor was.

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito adopted
a narrower version of a supervisor than Vance had proposed.

"An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when
the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions
against the victim, i.e., to effect a 'significant change in employment status, such as hiring,
firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities,
or a decision causing a significant change in benefits,'" Alito wrote.

The court rejected Vance's argument that a supervisor was anyone
with day-to-day oversight of an employee's activities
.
It also rejected what Alito called the "nebulous" guidance by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to link supervisor status
to the exercise of significant oversight over an employee's daily work.
<snip>
Sam's parents are so proud, as are the parents of Clarence Thomas.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote