Status of law prior to case holding:
Prior to the Vance v. Ball State case, the law surrounding the definition of a “supervisor” was vague, but essentially relied on the traditional sense that the defense utilized in their argument. The traditional definition of what a “supervisor” is was based on how business ran for centuries. The outdated business structure has a manager (employers) who is in charge of the business and what occurs on a daily basis, and the employees who are hired and directed by the manager. In this simplified version of a business structure, it was clear that the manager controlled all aspects of the employee’s employment, from their daily activities to their terms and conditions of employment. This made it quite simple …show more content…
The courts ruling in the Vance v. Ball State case has set the traditional standard of taking tangible employment action as the minimum for someone to be classified as a “supervisor”; this leave all those who have the ability to alter an employee’s daily activities and work environment off the hook when it comes to employer liability for such harassment. In Lakisha Davis’s article, she outlines something called “The Control Test for ‘Acting Supervisors’”. This test
“would consider factors, such as: (1) how often the harasser directs the victim’s daily work activities; (2) how long the harasser has been directing the victim 's daily work activities; (3) the harasser and victim 's job titles; (4) the harasser and victim 's job duties; (5) the number of employees who are directed by the harasser; and (6) whether the harasser is the only individual directing the victim 's daily activities.” (Davis, …show more content…
This standard asserts that an employer must prove two things before the are “off the hook” for vicarious liability of the hostile work environment. First the employer must show that they took reasonable actions in order to prevent or correct the harassment; second, they must show that the plaintiff did not take precautionary measures to avoid the harassment (Grover, Sperino, & Gonzalez, 2011). This standard can also be easily adapted into business’s practices in order to prevent vicarious liability. Most companies nowadays require employees to sit through online or video trainings about harassment in the workplace before they begin working. This covers the employers from the first prong of the Faragher/Ellerth defense as they have taken precautionary measures to prevent harassment in the workplace. This would work perfectly if not for the fact that, without actual supervisors in the workplace that have the ability to enforce such standards, this training is a waste. These “managers on duty” are not concerned with nor are they tasked with ensuring the workplace is a harassment free zone. These “managers on duty” are tasked with getting a certain amount of work done in a day and making sure the employees complete that work. Regardless though, from the perspective of businesses, this is a great win; businesses do not have to put in a lot of time or
Prior to the Vance v. Ball State case, the law surrounding the definition of a “supervisor” was vague, but essentially relied on the traditional sense that the defense utilized in their argument. The traditional definition of what a “supervisor” is was based on how business ran for centuries. The outdated business structure has a manager (employers) who is in charge of the business and what occurs on a daily basis, and the employees who are hired and directed by the manager. In this simplified version of a business structure, it was clear that the manager controlled all aspects of the employee’s employment, from their daily activities to their terms and conditions of employment. This made it quite simple …show more content…
The courts ruling in the Vance v. Ball State case has set the traditional standard of taking tangible employment action as the minimum for someone to be classified as a “supervisor”; this leave all those who have the ability to alter an employee’s daily activities and work environment off the hook when it comes to employer liability for such harassment. In Lakisha Davis’s article, she outlines something called “The Control Test for ‘Acting Supervisors’”. This test
“would consider factors, such as: (1) how often the harasser directs the victim’s daily work activities; (2) how long the harasser has been directing the victim 's daily work activities; (3) the harasser and victim 's job titles; (4) the harasser and victim 's job duties; (5) the number of employees who are directed by the harasser; and (6) whether the harasser is the only individual directing the victim 's daily activities.” (Davis, …show more content…
This standard asserts that an employer must prove two things before the are “off the hook” for vicarious liability of the hostile work environment. First the employer must show that they took reasonable actions in order to prevent or correct the harassment; second, they must show that the plaintiff did not take precautionary measures to avoid the harassment (Grover, Sperino, & Gonzalez, 2011). This standard can also be easily adapted into business’s practices in order to prevent vicarious liability. Most companies nowadays require employees to sit through online or video trainings about harassment in the workplace before they begin working. This covers the employers from the first prong of the Faragher/Ellerth defense as they have taken precautionary measures to prevent harassment in the workplace. This would work perfectly if not for the fact that, without actual supervisors in the workplace that have the ability to enforce such standards, this training is a waste. These “managers on duty” are not concerned with nor are they tasked with ensuring the workplace is a harassment free zone. These “managers on duty” are tasked with getting a certain amount of work done in a day and making sure the employees complete that work. Regardless though, from the perspective of businesses, this is a great win; businesses do not have to put in a lot of time or