Case Study Of Vance V. Ball State Univ

1. Title and Citation

Vance v. Ball State Univ.
570 U.S. ___ (2013)

2. Facts of the Case

Maetta Vance got picked on by some coworkers, and eventually, one of them got a position acting like a supervisor, while she was working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Division of University Dining. These coworkers were Saundra Davis and Connie McVicker. One day, Vance and Saundra Davis had some oral arguments that badly ended with Davis’s physical assault on Vance by slapping her in the head (Cornell University Law). Vance’s matter with Connie McVicker was that “Vance was told that co-worker Connie McVicker had bragged about McVicker’s family ties to the Ku Klux Klan and referred to Vance using a racial slur” (Cornell University

If a person had these kinds of responsibilities as mentioned above, he or she should “have the power to take a “tangible employment action” against the victim’ (Supremecourt.gov). It was used for reasoning by the Justices.

6. Separate Opinions

Justice Alito put the opinion about the case that Alito and the other four Justices had the same opinion as below:

The opinion adopted the rule proposed by the employer, holding that for purposes of this Title VII rule, to be a supervisor, a person must have the power to take a “tangible employment action” against the victim. That is, he must be able to affect 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. (Supremecourt.gov)

Justice Ginsburg objected to the Alito’s and the other Justices’ ideas, and the Justices, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined the opinion of Justice Ginsburg, too. Their reasoning was about a discrimination, which was about race related.

7.