The news on the issue of sexual harassment is prevalent today and government bodies are enacting new laws affording additional protections and companies are reevaluating their policies, procedures, and best practices. The common understanding is that if a supervisor is the perpetrator of sexual harassment, then actual notice of the offending acts is imputed on the employer. However, what qualifies a person as a true manager or supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? This question was addressed before the the sixth circuit court of appeals in the matter of EEOC v. Autozone.
The EEOC argued that the Autozone store manager in fact supervised employees who he could not terminate, promote, and/or reassign. Autozone asserted the defense that he was in fact not a supervisor under Title VII as he could not effect any adverse employment action against these particular employees complaining of sexual harassment. Each side stipulated that the store manager in this particular store could hire employees but could not terminate, promote, demote, or reassign which was delegated to the district manager who visited the store once per week.
Human resources and upper management learned of the sexual harassment as the complaints were reported up the chain of command. The EEOC received the charges filed by the employees and filed suit on their behalf. The manager was terminated by Autozone. The court heard on motion for summary judgment by Defendant that the manager was not a qualified supervisor under Title VII and therefore the case should be dismissed. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case which was appealed by the EEOC to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court clearly considered the legal question of whether he was a supervisor or a co-worker of the female employees he sexually harassed. The court pointed out that under Title VII, “[i]f the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions”—that is, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment yet failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2439–42 (2013). The Court went on to distinguish the competing legal positions that different rules apply if the harasser is the victim’s supervisor. Id. at 2439. In those cases, a non-negligent employer may become vicariously liable if the agency relationship aids the victim’s supervisor in his harassment. Id.; see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 801–04 (1998); Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761–62 (1998).
The Court held that the store manager was not a “supervisor” and thus Autozone could not be held liable as the manager could not take a “tangible employment action” against the complaining female employees. The Court qualified a “supervisor” as one who could effect such a tangible employment action which are those that “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.” Id. See Vance.
The Court further clarified the analysis that he was not a supervisor for merely being able to refer an employee for demotion or such other tangible employment action. It cited a number of cases and examples such as recommending adverse actions or influencing employment decisions that are not rubber stamped, ability to complete performance reviews, or scheduling employees did not cloak an employee as a supervisor under Title VII. Another clear distinction that was remarkable for the Court was that the store manager could not and did not hire the female employees who he could not control and thus Autozone was not in a position to aid and assist in the harassment. The Court went on to affirm the lower courts decision holding that the female employees failed to take advantage of corporate complaint mechanisms and more importantly that Autozone had taken corrective measures and redressing the harassment by terminating the manager’s employment.
About Roland
