Summarize: Vance v. Ball State University

Summarize a case Student: Professor: Course title: Date: Summarize a case Vance v. Ball State University Summary of the Issues in the case The court case of Maetta Vance (Petitioner) v. Ball State University is concerned about who counted and who did not count as a supervisor under Title VII. Alleging claims such as hostile work environment and retaliation, Ms. Vance, who is represented in court by Mr. Ortiz, is suing her employer for the violation of Title VII. Ms. Vance alleges that Ms. Davis of Ball State University had supervisory authority that triggered vicarious liability. Both parties were on agreement to the general legal standard that the harassers who have been conferred authority by their employers over their victims count as supervisors. They also agreed that the authority materially augments the harassment to the victims (Alderson Reporting Company (ARC), 2012). The term ‘augment’ has been used to mean that, the harassment is sufficient to instill the sense of fear in the victim, so that the harassed individual does not turn in the harasser. Moreover, it is also sufficient to the extent that the harasser has the ability to control the victim’s physical location and therefore, it can augment harassment. As Mr. Ortiz asserts, Ms. Davis’ role is considered as a supervisor and was being accused of harassment. He adds that she was a catering specialist and supervised various positions. Under the Seventh Circuit test, the category of the supervisor is the worker who has some kind of power over their victims, unlike that of the co-worker who has no power over the workers. Only those actions, which are materially adverse to the employees, count as harassment. The district court divided harassment into two categories, one consisted of events that are overtly racial in nature while the other did not. Justice Sotomayor stated that there is a difference between supervisors who have the power to take direct tangible actions and those who do n...