Washington — A sharply-divided Supreme
Court on Monday made it more difficult for Americans to sue businesses
for discrimination and retaliation, leading a judge to call for Congress
to overturn the court’s actions.
The
court’s conservatives, in two 5-4 decisions, ruled that a person must be
able to hire and fire someone to be considered a supervisor in
discrimination lawsuits, making it harder to blame a business for a
co-worker’s racism or sexism. The court then decided to limit how juries
can decide retaliation lawsuits, saying victims must prove employers
would not have taken action against them but for their intention to
retaliate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
who wrote both dissents for the court’s liberal wing and in a rare move
read one aloud in the courtroom, said the high court had “corralled
Title VII,” a law designed to stop discrimination in the nation’s
workplaces.
“Both decisions dilute the
strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended,” said
Ginsburg, who called on Congress to change the law to overturn the
court.
In the first case, Maetta Vance,
who was a catering specialist at Ball State University, accused a
co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005.
Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the
university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal
judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire
Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken
corrective action, it was not liable for Davis’ actions. The 7th Circuit
upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.
But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said for the
university to be liable, Davis must have had the authority to “hire,
fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” Vance.
“We hold that an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposed of vicarious
liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to
take tangible employment actions against the victim,” Alito said.
“Because there is no evidence that BSU empowered Davis to take any
tangible employment actions against Vance, the judgment of the Seventh
Circuit is affirmed.”
Alliance for Justice
President Nan Aron said the court made the wrong decision. “Deferring
to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, the Supreme Court
majority has imposed heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment
and discrimination seeking justice in our courts,” she said. “This
decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for
discrimination and harassment in the workplace.”
In the second case, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
wanted a discrimination lawsuit won by Dr. Naiel Nassar thrown out.
Nassar left in 2006 after complaining of harassment, but Parkland
Hospital withdrew its job offer after one of his former supervisors
opposed it. Nassar sued, saying the medical center retaliated against
him for his discrimination complaints by encouraging Parkland to take
away his job offer. A jury awarded him more than $3 million in damages.
The medical center appealed, saying the judge told the jury it only had
to find that retaliation was a motivating factor in the supervisor’s
actions, called mixed-motive. Instead, it said, the judge should have
told the jury it had to find that discriminatory action wouldn’t have
happened “but-for” the supervisor’s desire to retaliate for liability to
attach.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who
wrote the opinion, agreed with the lower court and the university,
saying people “must establish that his or her protected activity was a
but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” But he
didn’t rule completely for the medical center, sending the case back to
the lower courts after saying a decision on the resolution of the case
“is better suited by courts closer to the facts of this case.”
Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of
Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center, cheered the decision.
“If courts were allowed to label employees with little managerial
authority as ‘supervisors,’ that would have substantially increased the
number of frivolous lawsuits brought against small businesses and would
have done little, if anything, to reduce harassment,” she said. “For
small businesses, the increased possibility of liability and ensuing
costs would have been devastating. We are very pleased with the Supreme
Court’s decision.”
Kennedy, Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted together in those cases.
Ginsburg, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented together both times.
Ginsburg said she hopes Congress intervenes in both cases, just as it
did in past Title VII cases. “Today, the ball again lies in Congress’
court to correct this court’s wayward interpretations of Title VII,” she
said.
In other actions, the court:
— Sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower
court for another look. The court’s 7-1 decision leaves unsettled many
of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in
college admissions.
— Announced that it
would issue additional opinions on Tuesday as it begins to wrap up its
work for the summer. Justices still have not decided major cases
involving gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act.
— Decided to reconsider the constitutionality of a 2007 Massachusetts
law that bars protests in 35-foot “buffer zones” around abortion clinic
entrances, exits and driveways.
— Agreed
to review a federal appeals court decision that found President Barack
Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to
appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
— Rejected challenges to Environmental Protection Agency decisions allowing an increase in ethanol content in gasoline.
— Ruled generic drug manufacturers can’t be sued in state court for a
drug’s design defects if federal officials approved the brand-name
version the generic drug copied.
— Ruled
that a convicted military sex offender who completed his sentence can be
prosecuted for not updating his whereabouts in a federal sex offender
database, even though that law was passed after he finished serving his
sentence and was discharged from the military.
The cases are Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556 and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.
No comments:
Post a Comment