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 ...
I think this is aimed at companies like WalMart who give certain employees management titles and then make them Salaried Exempt so they can work them over 40 hours per week without paying overtime.
The Court appears to be saying if you don’t actually have the power to hire and fire they can’t classify you this way.
But can the SC so define ‘supervisor’ for that narrow purpose and not have it pertain in others?
It has long been codified in federal regulations that someone must be capable of hiring and firing before they can be called a manager. Sadly, most corporations fail to allow “managers” to hire or fire.
All this decision does is support that regulation.
The sad thing is that the plaintiff in the original case did not bring up the matter that the employer was ultimately responsible regardless of who was harassing her. The plaintiff’s lawyer wasn’t too bright.
But they believe they can, after all they are our Black-Robed god-Kings, able to bend even the Constitution that gives them authority to their twisted wills.
Why should federal regulations apply to some private entity (i.e. someone not part of the federal government)?
It shouldn’t. The regulation was in place because the EEOC rules stated there were to be different regulations depending on the superior person’s position if they were performing acts against the EOEOC regs. So, they tried to define a manager. They also define an executive, hourly, etc.
This is nothing but government intrusion where it has no right to be. Nothing in the Constitution allows government regulation of employment. Employment was always at-will for both sides If an employer treated someone badly word got out and they found it difficult to hire anyone.
I wonder how many companies will change the title of “supervisor”, to “Group Leader”.
“Sounds like a goofy ruling. Sounds like the Supreme Court needs Supervisors of their own.”
They do — the NSA and dear leader.
I think the point is that a ‘victim’ must now at least inform a hiring/firing management person is made aware of the complaint of the harassment and given an opportunity to fix the problem first before suing.
“I wonder how many companies will change the title of supervisor, to Group Leader.”
People read the decision wrong, or not at all. The court didn’t define the term ‘supervisor’. They upheld that a person that could hire and fire was considered a ‘manager’ so EEOC rules would apply differently to that position. That’s all they did.
“Sounds like a goofy ruling. Sounds like the Supreme Court needs Supervisors of their own.
They do the NSA and dear leader.”
Zing! Nice one.
The current favorite work euphemism is ‘team’—so maybe ‘team leader’ will be the way to go.
translation, 9 people who never worked for a living.
“But can the SC so define supervisor for that narrow purpose and not have it pertain in others?”
All they were doing is interpreting the statute. Their definition only applies for this particular statute and only applies unless congress says otherwise.