Supreme Court ruling defines what it means to be a “supervisor”

Recently the Supreme Court ruled on two cases, which now make it more difficult for employees to allege retaliation and discrimination in employment law cases. The decisions of the cases are so contentious that one justice is asking Congress to overturn the rulings.

Case 1

Two cases were at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s decisions. In the first matter, a medical center appealed a successful discrimination lawsuit brought by a doctor-employee. The doctor left the medical facility for another position after complaining of harassment at his original institution. However, the new employer withdrew its offer after one of the employee’s from the former medical facility opposed the doctor’s move. The doctor sued, alleging that his original employer retaliated against the doctor for his prior discrimination complaints. The plaintiff felt that the actions encouraged the subsequent employer to recant the job offer. The plaintiff won.

However, the medical facility appealed the plaintiff’s victory, arguing that the jury instructions in the initial ruling were incorrect. Originally, the jury was informed that it only had to confirm that the retaliation was a “motivating factor” in the supervisor’s actions. Instead, the hospital felt that the judge should have instructed the jury that for liability to exist, the discriminatory action would not have occurred “but for” the supervisor’s intention to retaliate. The case was sent to the Supreme Court where Justice Kennedy asserted that that “but-for” instruction was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer, and unresolved issues were sent back to the lower courts.

Case 2

In the second case, a catering specialist at a school accused a co-worker of racial harassment and retaliation in events that dated back to 2005. The plaintiff sued the school, alleging that the school was liable because the co-worker was the plaintiff’s supervisor. A federal judge disagreed, noting that the aggressor was a co-worker (not a supervisor), and since the school had taken action against the co-worker, it was not liable for the co-worker’s actions. Once the case reached the highest court, the ruling was affirmed. This case turned on the definition of a “supervisor.”

Holdings

The cases clarify the standard for the jury’s assessment of retaliation in employment discrimination cases. Now, victims must prove that employers would not have taken the unfavorable action against them “but for” their purpose to retaliate. In staunch disagreement, Justice Ginsburg has asked Congress to overturn the ruling in the law.

Moreover, the cases revealed the definition of a “supervisor” within the ambit of employment law. A person must have the ability to hire and fire a person to be considered a supervisor of the business. This finding is crucial in many employment law matters. Both holdings will ultimately make it more difficult to point the finger at businesses for cases involving egregious issues, including sexism or racism.

If you are confronting employment law issues in your workplace, take the time to meet with a qualified employment law attorney in your area. Case law is always evolving, and the changes can severely affect the fate of discrimination or retaliation lawsuits. A lawyer can help assess any relevant laws.