Vance v. Ball State University
United States Supreme Court
570 U.S. 421 (2013), 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Maetta Vance (plaintiff), an African-American woman, worked as a catering assistant for Ball State University (BSU) (defendant). Vance worked with Saundra Davis, a white woman who was employed as a catering specialist. Davis was a higher-ranking BSU employee who had leadership responsibilities and occasionally directed Vance’s work. Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, or discipline Vance. Vance brought suit against BSU, claiming that Davis continually harassed her on the job and that BSU was vicariously liable for Davis’s harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court found that BSU was not vicariously liable for Davis’ actions because Davis was not a supervisor and could not take any tangible employment actions against Vance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
