Liability Rule Under The Title Vii

1388 Words6 Pages
The significance of this case revolves around the “supervisor(s)” liability rule under the Title VII. The rule under the Title VII act clearly states that employer’s liability for workplace harassment depends upon the status or job title and duties of the harasser. Summarizing that if the harasser is a co-worker the employer will only be held accountable if negligence in diffusing the intense and awkward work conditions was found on their part. However, if the harasser is a supervisor, (has the power to change employee work status i.e. hire, fire, etc.), and the harassment results in tangible actions towards the employee such as changes in duties, benefits, etc… the employer is totally liable. On the other hand, the employer is not liable if corrective measures and procedure were provided on the companies end, or if the plaintiff ignored or disregarded corrective measures provided by the employer. Specifically in this case Maetta Vance, an African American women and catering assistant for Ball State University, after several complaints and attempts filed a lawsuit again Ball State Universality as a result of a racial and hostile work environment afflicted upon her by her Caucasian co-worker Saundra Davis. This case was argued on November 26, 2012 and received a decision on June 24, 20013, which stated that BSU was not vicariously liable for the actions of Davis, due to the fact that Davis was not considered a supervisor or person of authority, to which she could have taken

More about Liability Rule Under The Title Vii

Get Access