Skip to comments.Supreme Court says people must be able to hire and fire to be considered a supervisor
Posted on 06/24/2013 7:18:36 AM PDT by SMGFan
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court says people must be able to hire and fire people to be considered a supervisor in a discrimination lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Was is it not the job of a manager to do so?
In a position of authority.
BIG impact on low-level managers in retail chains and the like who are considered Salaried Exempt, I take it?
Either the court has four idiots or there are some serious philosophical differences regarding the constitution surfacing in their decisions.
Sounds like a goofy ruling. Sounds like the Supreme Court needs Supervisors of their own.
Seems like a rather short-sighted and rigid definition that will lead to weird and/or unfortunate results in future cases.
Not just retail - I’d have to go up two levels of “supervisors” to get to someone that could fire me, and I imagine that’s true of many organizations.
The problem is that I imagine my supervisor could make a RECOMMENDATION to fire me - does that count?
What idiocy that we have the USSC legislating the minutiae of who’s a supervisor. I actually would take the term ‘supervisor’ to include those who have day-to-day managerial responsibilities, but not the authority to hire or fire.
Pretty interesting coming from people who have a lifetime job.
I agree with the decision myself. Part of the reason is that I like it when they err on the side of the employer. I’ve seen too many really bad employees successfully sue to get their jobs back. And it is not lost on me that every single one of them was black. White employees are less likely to do that. Frankly, if I’m fired by a manager that is clearly discriminating I go work for someone else.
I believe employers should have the right to fire you because you remind them of their ex-spouse. It’s their company. And I have the right to seek employment somewhere else if my boss reminds ME of MY ex-spouse. Completely fair.
This is the way it would work in a free market, anyway.
This will affect sexual harassment laws.
Nobody in the Federal Gov. ever gets fired.
"Workers Rights groups" are focusing hard on this case, by the way... and are very unhappy with the result... so I guess it can't be an entirely bad thing.
Dittos to both of you.
Does anyone know the breakdown of the vote? Were the majority conservative Justices?
I think it is laughable the number of times that the black woman calls her job (amongst mostly whites) “a living hell” and “torment”, when the primary complaint is that she was often assigned to do “menial tasks” like chopping veggies rather than the nicer jobs of food prep and serving. (She also alleges lots of arguments and epithets, but I’d bet a bag of donuts that she was the instigator in most cases.)
Yea it sure will.
A whole lot of phony claims of racial, or sexual harassment will never get to court since the employer can’t be held liable.
What a shame.
I disagree. I’ve been a supervisor and have had supervisors over me. But supervisors do not hire and fire. That’s what managers are for.
This is basic Business 101. And no silly SCOTUS ruling can change years of fundamental business hierarchies.