Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court says people must be able to hire and fire to be considered a supervisor
Washington Post ^ | June 24, 2013

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ruling; workforce
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
5-4 decision
1 posted on 06/24/2013 7:18:36 AM PDT by SMGFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Was is it not the job of a manager to do so?


2 posted on 06/24/2013 7:19:50 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

In a position of authority.


3 posted on 06/24/2013 7:20:13 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

BIG impact on low-level managers in retail chains and the like who are considered Salaried Exempt, I take it?


4 posted on 06/24/2013 7:20:59 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

5-4 decision


Aren’t they all? It’s like Israel having a supreme court with five Isrealis and four palestinians.

Either the court has four idiots or there are some serious philosophical differences regarding the constitution surfacing in their decisions.


5 posted on 06/24/2013 7:22:45 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Sounds like a goofy ruling. Sounds like the Supreme Court needs Supervisors of their own.


6 posted on 06/24/2013 7:23:21 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Seems like a rather short-sighted and rigid definition that will lead to weird and/or unfortunate results in future cases.


7 posted on 06/24/2013 7:23:25 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

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?


8 posted on 06/24/2013 7:23:29 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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.


9 posted on 06/24/2013 7:25:59 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Pretty interesting coming from people who have a lifetime job.


10 posted on 06/24/2013 7:27:33 AM PDT by V_TWIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

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.


11 posted on 06/24/2013 7:28:07 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

This will affect sexual harassment laws.


12 posted on 06/24/2013 7:28:16 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Nobody in the Federal Gov. ever gets fired.


13 posted on 06/24/2013 7:28:47 AM PDT by mfish13 (ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: SMGFan
Doing a bit more reading, it seems like the Supreme Court is implying that only harassment by "a supervisor" is important. Does this mean that harassment by a coworker is not actionable?

"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.

16 posted on 06/24/2013 7:30:59 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hattend; cuban leaf

Dittos to both of you.

Does anyone know the breakdown of the vote? Were the majority conservative Justices?


17 posted on 06/24/2013 7:33:58 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kabar

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.)


18 posted on 06/24/2013 7:34:36 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

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.


19 posted on 06/24/2013 7:36:08 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hattend

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.


20 posted on 06/24/2013 7:36:19 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

“The court, dividing along ideological lines, said people qualify as supervisors only if they can take tangible employment actions against the alleged victim.
The issue is an important one because employers are generally liable for racial and sexual harassment by supervisors. Workers file more than 30,000 formal harassment complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-24/job-supervisor-harassment-suits-limited-by-u-s-supreme-court.html


21 posted on 06/24/2013 7:36:24 AM PDT by SMGFan (SMGfan is not "Sub Machine Gun" fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

http://www.newsmax.com/US/supreme-court-supervisors-hire/2013/06/24/id/511495


22 posted on 06/24/2013 7:37:37 AM PDT by SMGFan (SMGfan is not "Sub Machine Gun" fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

As a supervisor for a department in my company, I find this interesting. We have a pretty rigid standard about firing people. Ironclad documentation is a requirement. I, personally, do not have the authority to fire people on my own. I have to take it to MY manager, who then takes it to HR, who initiates the process.

The reason the documentation is so important is so the person can’t come back and sue us for their job back OR claim unemployment. One person last year did try to claim unemployment after being fired. There was one bit of paperwork that was overlooked and that caused the state to award the employee with unemployment bennies. (Side note: Yes, the person in question was one of ‘Holder’s people’.)

I’m thinking of forwarding the article about this decision to my HR director. I wonder what he thinks of it, and if it affects me at all.


23 posted on 06/24/2013 7:38:27 AM PDT by hoagy62 ("Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered..."-Thomas Paine. 1776)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Yep. Why this case ever reached the Supreme Court is beyond me.


24 posted on 06/24/2013 7:38:42 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Every business is FULL of managers that do not have the authority to hire a person or to fire a person.


25 posted on 06/24/2013 7:39:09 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Alito: "What was the most unpleasant thing that Davis could have assigned [Vance] to do? Could it be chopping onions all day, every day?"
Her attorney: "Chopping onions all day might be punishment" and could trigger a workplace retaliation or discrimination claim.

*sigh*

26 posted on 06/24/2013 7:40:18 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

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’ve been around the block a few times. That was my take as well.


27 posted on 06/24/2013 7:40:48 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

So now doing your job is harassment and punishment.


28 posted on 06/24/2013 7:41:00 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
It certainly seems like THIS case is one of those... but the Supreme Court should always keep in mind that their narrow definitions will get used and abused by lawyers over the next 100 years or so, and give us insanity like wheat being grown on a farm to feed your own cattle is actually "in interstate commerce" (Wickhard v Filburn). That's why the very vague "you know it when you see it" (the standard for porn) is rather brilliant in my book.

However, you're almost certainly correct... Miss Vance (and her attorneys) are likely crummy people who are looking for an unearned lottery payout based on over-playing the Race Card (tm),

29 posted on 06/24/2013 7:45:15 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
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.)

As an amateur chef I would reserve the right to even preclude somebody from chopping my veggies if warranted.

Oh, in my early days I spent full shifts busing tables and washing dishes and came home smelling like stale ice cream.

30 posted on 06/24/2013 7:55:47 AM PDT by jimfree (In November 2016 my 12 y/o granddaughter will have more quality exec experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I had an idiot on my crew complain to the office that I was a racist.

The office went into a full witch hunt to find out if I was a racist, calling in each guy on my crew to question them separately.

Finally got around to calling me in to question me.

I asked what it was that I had done that was supposed to be racist.

The office never bothered to ask the guy making the claim all he had to do was say I was a racist.

I told the office they could tell me what it was I was supposed to have done that made me a racist or I was walking.

The supervisor left and went and talked to the guy making the claim. When he came back he said the complaint was dropped and it was settled.

I didn’t drop it. I told him to tell me what it was I was supposed to have said or done or I was walking.

Turns out the guy claimed I was a racist because I wouldn’t let him sleep on the job.

It was his first day and HE BE TIRED so I should have let him sleep.


31 posted on 06/24/2013 7:57:30 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

My stepson, who doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, had finally had it with some of the folks he works with. He said to me, one day, “why is it that black people always seem to have some scam going on the job?”

Every guy he knew that overtly tried to abuse the system and get out of doing work or get paid for time when they were not there was black. Every. Single. One.

It really left a bad taste for him.

Where my wife worked there were a surprising number of people fired over the years she was there. Every one of them deserved it. Three of them took the company to court over it. All three were black and all three lost. It was ridiculous. They were all TERRIBLE employees and broke clear and important company rules with impunity.


32 posted on 06/24/2013 8:02:05 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Agreed.


33 posted on 06/24/2013 8:03:54 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Nothing stops them from suing the individual(s) for claims of racial or sexual harassment if it actually happens.

It takes away the incentive for the phony claims looking for a settlement from the business.


34 posted on 06/24/2013 8:04:52 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

so the law uses the word “supervisor” instead of “manager” so SCOTUS must pretzel itself to make it all work?


35 posted on 06/24/2013 8:08:50 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
*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. *

Nice to hear that the Supreme Court has settled ail the big questions and have time for something like this.

Now, what have they decided on which are acceptable colors for a company lunchroom?

36 posted on 06/24/2013 8:10:19 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

” “why is it that black people always seem to have some scam going on the job?””

I had one start on my crew, first day on the job wanted to get hurt so he could be put on lie duty and get paid for 50 hours without working.

He picked up the end of a joint of 2/38” tubing and dropped it on his hand thinking it was only going to bruise his hand.

Broke his finger instead.

Wanted me to take him to the doctor.

I told him he broke it on purpose so if he wanted to go to the doctor he could quit and walk to the doctor. That was about 8:00 or 8:30.

We stopped for lunch about 1:30 or 2:00 and I took him to the doctor.

First and last person ever tried that stunt on my crew.


37 posted on 06/24/2013 8:16:05 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

The washpost headline is not entirely accurate. The Court decided that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim and the Court defines “tangible employment action” to include actions that involve 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.”


38 posted on 06/24/2013 8:16:40 AM PDT by Blackyce (President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always The reason it was easymeans failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

This will turn government supervisor’s upside down. Currently if you have a “supervisor” it is in a duty section, branch, department, center, etc. This ruling would on the surface make only the Human Resources Office a supervisor - no wonder government is unaccountable.


39 posted on 06/24/2013 8:28:24 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Oh Great!
NOW they tell me!


40 posted on 06/24/2013 8:36:43 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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.


41 posted on 06/24/2013 8:41:34 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce

But can the SC so define ‘supervisor’ for that narrow purpose and not have it pertain in others?


42 posted on 06/24/2013 8:42:04 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

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.


43 posted on 06/24/2013 8:42:21 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
And no silly SCOTUS ruling can change years of fundamental business hierarchies.

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.

44 posted on 06/24/2013 8:49:25 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
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.

Why should federal regulations apply to some private entity (i.e. someone not part of the federal government)?

45 posted on 06/24/2013 8:51:13 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


46 posted on 06/24/2013 9:05:44 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I wonder how many companies will change the title of “supervisor”, to “Group Leader”.


47 posted on 06/24/2013 9:14:59 AM PDT by Ed Condon (Give 'em a heading, an altitude, and a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Sounds like a goofy ruling. Sounds like the Supreme Court needs Supervisors of their own.”

They do — the NSA and dear leader.


48 posted on 06/24/2013 9:22:09 AM PDT by Londo Molari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

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.


49 posted on 06/24/2013 9:29:51 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ed Condon

“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.


50 posted on 06/24/2013 9:34:36 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson