of 71
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
1/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
3 MAETTA VANCE, :
4 Pet i t i oner : No. 11- 556
v. :
6 BALL STATE UNI VERSI TY, ET AL. :
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
8 Washi ngt on, D. C.
9 Monday, November 26, 2012
11 The above- ent i t l ed mat t er came on f or or al
12 ar gument bef ore t he Supreme Cour t of t he Uni t ed Stat es
13 at 11: 06 a. m.
14 APPEARANCES:
DANI EL R. ORTI Z, ESQ. , Char l ot t esvi l l e, Vi r gi ni a; on
16 behal f of Pet i t i oner .
17 SRI SRI NI VASAN, ESQ. , Deput y Sol i ci t or Gener al ,
18 Depart ment of J ust i ce, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; f or Uni t ed
19 St at es , as ami cus cur i ae, i n suppor t of nei t her
par t y.
21 GREGORY G. GARRE, ESQ. , Washi ngt on, D. C. ; on behal f of
22 Respondent s.
23
24
1Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
2/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 C O N T E N T S
2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE
3 DANI EL R. ORTI Z, ESQ.
4 On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 3
ORAL ARGUMENT OF
6 SRI SRI NI VASAN, ESQ.
7 For Uni ted Stat es, as ami cus cur i ae, 20
8 i n suppor t of nei t her par t y
9 ORAL ARGUMENT OF
GREGORY G. GARRE, ESQ.
11 On behal f of t he Respondent s 32
12 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF
13 DANI EL R. ORTI Z, ESQ.
14 On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 53
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
2Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
3/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ( 11: 06 a. m. )
3 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: We' l l hear ar gument
4 next t hi s mor ni ng i n Case 11- 556, Vance v. Bal l St at e
Uni ver si t y.
6 Mr . Or t i z.
7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF DANI EL R. ORTI Z
8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TI ONER
9 MR. ORTI Z: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may i t
pl ease t he Cour t :
11 Thi s case concer ns who count s and who does
12 not count as a super vi sor under Ti t l e VI I . The par t i es
13 and t he Uni t ed St at es agr ee t hat t he Sevent h Ci r cui t
14 r ul e vi ol at es t he hol di ng of Far agher , t he r easoni ng of
Far agher and t hi s Cour t ' s ot her cent r al Ti t l e VI I
16 pr ecedent s, i ncl udi ng Bur l i ngt on Nort her n and St aub, and
17 t he common- sense meani ng of t he wor d "super vi sor . "
18 The par t i es even agr ee as t o t he gener al
19 l egal st andar d, al t hough t hey st yl e i t a l i t t l e bi t
di f f er ent - - di f f er ent l y, t hat t hose har asser s whose
21 empl oyer - conf er r ed aut hor i t y over t hei r vi ct i ms enabl es
22 or mat er i al l y augment s t he harassment shoul d count as
23 super vi sors.
24 Thi s i s not a st andar d, Your Honor , t hat
i mposes aut omat i c l i abi l i t y on empl oyer s. Vi ct i ms must
3Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
4/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 st i l l pr ove act i onabl e har assment , and empl oyer s can
2 st i l l t ake advant age of t he El l er t h/ Far agher af f i r mat i ve
3 def ense.
4 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Let ' s say you have a
work r oom. There are f i ve peopl e who work t here. And
6 t he empl oyer has a r ul e t hat t he seni or empl oyee get s to
7 pi ck t he musi c t hat ' s goi ng t o pl ay al l day l ong. And
8 t he seni or empl oyee says t o one of t he ot her
9 empl oyees - - you know, i f you don' t date me - - I know
you don' t l i ke count r y musi c; i f you don' t dat e me, i t ' s
11 goi ng t o be count r y musi c al l day l ong.
12 Now, t hat af f ect s t he dai l y act i vi t i es of
13 t hat ot her empl oyee. I woul d have t hought , under your
14 t heory, t hat means t hat t hat seni or empl oyee i s a
super vi sor .
16 MR. ORTI Z: No, Your Honor , because i n t hat
17 ci r cumst ance t he adver se act i on woul d not amount t o - -
18 woul d not be sever e. Or , per haps i t woul d be
19 per vasi ve - -
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , t hat coul d
21 be - - t hat coul d be f ar more sever e t han, f or exampl e - -
22 J USTI CE SCALI A: Har d r ock i nst ead of - -
23 ( Laught er . )
24 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: I t coul d be f ar mor e
sever e t han si mpl y sayi ng, al l r i ght - - you know, you' r e
4Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
5/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 goi ng t o - - as i n t hi s case - - you' r e goi ng t o be
2 cut t i ng t he cel er y r at her t han - - you know, baki ng t he
3 bread, or what ever .
4 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , no, Your Honor , t hi s i s
t he - - t he sever i t y i s an obj ecti ve st andar d; i t ' s not a
6 subj ect i ve. So i n t hi s case, someone' s i nt ense
7 di sl i ke - - maybe i t ' s debi l i t at i ng, subj ect i ve - -
8 di sl i ke of r ock musi c, some f or ms of count r y musi c - -
9 mi ght i mpai r t he per f ormance of some i n t he workpl ace;
but , f r om an obj ect i ve reasonabl e empl oyee' s s t andpoi nt ,
11 I don' t bel i eve t hat t hat woul d be t he case. Not al l - -
12 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , but , I mean,
13 t here are pl aces where t he envi r onment - - you know, an
14 assembl y l i ne or somet hi ng l i ke t hat - - wher e t he t ask
may not be t hat di f f er ent , but how you - - t he
16 envi r onment i n whi ch you have t o per f orm t hem may be f ar
17 mor e si gni f i cant t han whet her or not you' r e at t achi ng
18 t he door handl es or t he f r ont f ender s.
19 MR. ORTI Z: Oh, f or sur e, Your Honor , but
t hat has t o be j udged on a case- by- case basi s.
21 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , exact l y. And
22 I woul d have t hought t he benef i t of t he Sevent h
23 Ci r cui t ' s t est was t hat you don' t have t o go t hr ough
24 t hose case- by- case basi s. I t hi nk we can have a
r easonabl e debat e about whet her t he musi c you have t o
5Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
6/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 l i st en t o f or ei ght hour s i s obj ecti vel y a si gni f i cant
2 enough i nt er f er ence wi t h t he dai l y act i vi t i es t o qual i f y
3 under your t est .
4 But t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t est makes cl ear - -
i t doesn' t gi ve any ki nd of i mmuni t y; i t j ust makes
6 cl ear what t ype of anal ysi s i s goi ng t o be appl i ed t o
7 t he al l egat i on.
8 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , Your Honor , the Respondent
9 act ual l y exagger at es t he det er mi nat i veness of t he
Sevent h Ci r cui t r ul e, and t he i ndet er mi nat i veness - -
11 bot h i ndet er mi nat i veness and unpr edi ct abi l i t y of t he
12 Second Ci r cui t r ul e.
13 The Sevent h Ci r cui t i t sel f has r ecogni zed - -
14 t he j udges i n t he Sevent h Ci r cui t i t sel f have r ecogni zed
t hat t he r ul e does not r eal l y wel l f i t t he r eal i t i es of
16 t he wor kpl ace. I t al so j ust moves uncer t ai nt y f r om one
17 cat egory t o anot her .
18 The cat egor y of super vi sor may be a l i t t l e
19 bi t t i di er ; but , under t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ' s appr oach,
t he cat egor y of co- wor ker i s ver y unpr edi ct abl e.
21 The Sevent h Ci r cui t i t sel f , i n
22 Doe v. Ober wei s Dai r y, r ecogni zed t hat once you move
23 peopl e who can t ake - - have t hi s ki nd of power over
24 t hei r vi ct i ms but can' t act ual l y t ake t angi bl e empl oyment
act i ons agai nst t hem i nt o t he cat egor y of co- wor ker s,
6Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
7/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 al l of a sudden you have t o appl y a sl i di ng scal e of
2 negl i gence. Not onl y t hat , but t he j ur y i s t he one who
3 appl i es i t .
4 So f or t hose cat egor i es - - t hi s exact
cat egory of empl oyee, Your Honor , t he empl oyee - -
6 empl oyer goi ng f or war d has ver y l i t t l e i dea of
7 whet her - - what st andar d of car e i s t hat a par t i cul ar
8 j ur y woul d appl y i n t hat case and whet her t he j ur y woul d
9 deci de i t i s met or not .
The Sevent h Second - - Sevent h Ci r cui t r ul e,
11 i n t he over al l , i s no mor e det er mi nat i ve t han t he Second
12 Ci r cui t r ul e.
13 Al so, Respondent poi nt s t o no cases i n t he
14 Second Ci r cui t or t he ot her ci r cui t s t hat have adopt ed
t hi s r ul e wher e cour t s have i dent i f i ed pr obl ems wi t h i t s
16 appl i cat i on. And t hat - -
17 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , coul d you expl ai n
18 what t he mat er i al l y augment s r ul e means? Coul d you
19 pr ovi de a def i ni t i on of t hat ? The aut hor i t y t o assi gn
dai l y tasks has t o be suf f i ci ent t o do what ?
21 MR. ORTI Z: I t has t o be suf f i ci ent t o
22 enabl e t he har asser t o i nst i l l ei t her f ear i n t he vi cti m
23 t hat t he vi ct i m shoul d not t ur n t he har asser i n, or t hat
24 i t may have t o do wi t h t he har asser ' s abi l i t y t o cont r ol
t he physi cal l ocat i on of t he vi ct i m. That can augment
7Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
8/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 har assment .
2 I f an har asser can st eer a vi ct i m t o a
3 l ocat i on wher e t he har asser has an oppor t uni t y t o
4 harass, and, i ndeed, may have an opport uni t y t o harass
wi t hout ot her empl oyees or ot her peopl e i n t he company
6 seei ng i n, t hat woul d mat er i al l y augment - -
7 J USTI CE ALI TO: Ther e ar e si t uat i ons wher e
8 t he - - t he assi gnment of r esponsi bi l i t i es i s ext r emel y
9 unpl easant , and so i t ' s easy t o see how t he t est i mony
woul d appl y i n t hat si t uat i on.
11 But t her e ar e al so a l ot of si t uat i ons, l i ke
12 t he Chi ef J ust i ce' s exampl e, wher e i t ' s r eal l y ver y
13 uncl ear . I don' t know how cour t s are goi ng t o - - how
14 cour t s can gr appl e wi t h t hat .
MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , Your Honor , t hi s - -
16 J USTI CE ALI TO: You sai d t hat bei ng
17 subj ect ed t o count r y musi c or hard r ock or Wagner - - you
18 know, every si ngl e day i n t he workpl ace woul d not be
19 suf f i ci ent . I don' t know. Some peopl e mi ght t hi nk t hat
i t was - - t hat t hat i s.
21 MR. ORTI Z: J ust i ce Al i t o, t hi s par t of t he
22 st andar d, par t i cul ar l y t he mat er i al i t y r equi r ement , i s
23 meant t o t r ack t hi s Cour t ' s st andar d i n Bur l i ngt on
24 Nor t her n, wher e i t sai d t hat onl y act i ons t hat ar e
mat er i al l y adver se t o the empl oyee woul d count .
8Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
9/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 And t hi s Cour t i dent i f i ed t he mat er i al i t y
2 r equi r ement t her e as actual l y worki ng t o make t he
3 st andar d mor e obj ect i ve, not - -
4 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Mr . Or t i z, why i sn' t t he
quest i on t hat you' r e pr esent i ng academi c i n t hi s case?
6 Because di dn' t t he di st r i ct j udge say t hat t her e had
7 been no showi ng t hat Davi s' conduct was suf f i ci ent l y
8 sever e or per vasi ve?
9 I t woul dn' t mat t er i f t he super vi sor - - i f
t he conduct was not suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve
11 har assment , and, equal l y, i f t he company r esponded every
12 t i me a compl ai nt was l odged. The di st r i ct cour t f ound
13 bot h of t hose t hi ngs, t hat i t wasn' t sever e and
14 per vasi ve, and t hat ever y t i me she cl ai med - - compl ai ned
an i nvest i gat i on was made.
16 MR. ORTI Z: J ust i ce Gi nsbur g, we act ual l y
17 t r i ed t o br i ng t hose t hi ngs up bef ore t he Sevent h
18 Ci r cui t , but t he Sevent h Ci r cui t f ound i t unnecessary t o
19 r each t hem because of i t s hol di ng as t o super vi sor y
l i abi l i t y.
21 I f t hi s Cour t wer e t o r ever se t he Sevent h
22 Ci r cui t ' s af f i r mance of summar y j udgment of t he di st r i ct
23 court , t he case woul d t hen be r emanded t o t he Sevent h
24 Ci r cui t , wher e i t coul d ei t her l ook at t hese
al t er nat i ve - - t hese ot her hol di ngs, or t he t hi ng woul d
9Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
10/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 be - - i t coul d be r emanded at t hat poi nt and sent back
2 t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or anot her l ook.
3 The di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng, t he Sevent h
4 Ci r cui t not ed, when i t was t al ki ng about ot her i nci dent s
of harassment was ver y unusual . What t he di st r i ct cour t
6 di d was i t di vi ded al l of t he i nci dent s i nt o t wo
7 cat egor i es.
8 One cat egor y - - one cat egor y consi st ed of
9 event s t hat by t hemsel ves wer e not over t l y r aci al i n
natur e and t he other category consi st ed of t hose event s
11 t hat wer e over t l y r aci al i n nat ur e, wher e a r aci al
12 epi t het had been hur l ed at someone, f or exampl e, and
13 sai d wi t h r espect t o t he f i r st cat egor y, t he t hi ngs - -
14 t he event s t hat on t hei r f ace di d not announce r aci al
ani mosi t y, t hat t her e wasn' t any r aci al nexus, so t hey
16 di dn' t count , and swept al l t hose event s out and t hen
17 l ooked at t he r emai ni ng ones where t he connect i on t o
18 r aci al ani mus was over t . And i t sai d, wel l , t hese,
19 t here may be some, but t hey j ust don' t count .
So t he Sevent h Ci r cui t i t sel f di scredi t ed
21 t he r easoni ng of t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hose ver y
22 hol di ngs.
23 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Or t i z, suppose I agr ee
24 wi t h your st andar d, but I j ust can' t f i nd on t he r ecor d
as i t has been pr esent ed i n t hi s Cour t any evi dence t hat
10Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
11/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 Davi s act ual l y served as Vance' s super vi sor . What - - I
2 mean, what ' s your best - - so i f t hat ' s t r ue, I woul d be
3 t empt ed t o act ual l y j ust deci de t he t hi ng r at her t han t o
4 r emand i t .
So as agai nst t hat appr oach, what i s your
6 best evi dence t hat t her e was a super vi sor y r el at i onshi p
7 under your st andar d her e?
8 MR. ORTI Z: Fi r st , J ust i ce Kagan, i t i s
9 i mpor t ant t o keep i n mi nd t hat t he r ecor d was devel oped
under t he wr ong l egal st andard. But even consi der i ng
11 t hat - -
12 J USTI CE KAGAN: Wel l , i s t hat t he case? I s
13 t here evi dence t hat you di d not pr esent because t he
14 Sevent h Ci r cui t appl i ed a di f f er ent st andar d?
MR. ORTI Z: There was evi dence t hat was
16 probabl y not devel oped bel ow because t he Seventh
17 Ci r cui t ' s st andar d was so absol ut e. But t her e i s
18 act ual l y evi dence i n t he r ecor d, we bel i eve pl ent y of
19 evi dence, suf f i ci ent cer t ai nl y t o over come summary
j udgment , al t hough perhaps not enough f or par t i al
21 summary j udgment on t hi s quest i on i n our f avor .
22 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: What ot her t han t he j ob
23 descr i pt i on? The j ob descr i pt i on says t hat t he cat er i ng
24 speci al i st has aut hor i t y t o di r ect or l ead t he par t - t i me
empl oyees. But what concr et e i nst ances of Davi s
11Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
12/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 exer ci si ng super vi sor y aut hor i t y over Vance i s t her e i n
2 t hi s r ecor d?
3 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , J ust i ce - - t her e i s t wo
4 separ at e quest i ons, J ust i ce Gi nsbur g. One i s i nst ances
of i t ; ot her s i s whet her she has t he aut hor i t y or not .
6 Because t hi s Cour t has hel d i n Far agher i t sel f t hat i t
7 i s t he aut hor i t y t hat makes t he di f f er ence, not t he
8 act ual exer ci si ng of i t i n a par t i cul ar case.
9 But l et me go t hr ough what i s i n t he r ecor d
now, much of i t whi ch i s i n t he J oi nt Appendi x but not
11 al l , because we were not aware t hat we woul d be opposi ng
12 a summar y j udgment mot i on bef or e t hi s Cour t .
13 Fi r st , Wi l l i am Ki mes, who i s t he di r ect or of
14 t he uni ver si t y banquet and cat er i ng di vi si on, t he sort of
head of t hi s 60- some- per son depar t ment . Two empl oyees
16 t est i f i ed t hat he t ol d t hem t hat Davi s was a super vi sor .
17 One of t hem was Vance; t hat coul d be f ound on page 198
18 of t he J oi nt Appendi x. Anot her i s an empl oyee who was
19 i n Vance' s posi t i on named Dawn Knox, and t hat st at ement
can be f ound on page 386 of t he J oi nt Appendi x.
21 Wi l l i am Ki mes hi msel f t est i f i ed i n hi s
22 deposi t i on t hat Davi s, quot e: "Di r ect ed and l ed ot her
23 empl oyees i n t he ki t chen. " That can be f ound on page
24 367 of t he J oi nt Appendi x. I n an i nt er nal i nvest i gat i on
by compl i ance of f i cer s at Bal l St at e - -
12Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
13/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: What I mean i s not t he
2 st at ement , wel l , she' s a super vi sor . But compar abl e t o
3 Far agher , wher e t he l i f eguar d who di dn' t have aut hor i t y
4 t o hi r e her or f i r e her sai d, i f you don' t dat e me, you
ar e goi ng t o be cl eani ng t he t oi l et s. We don' t have
6 anyt hi ng l i ke t hat i n t hi s r ecor d.
7 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , t her e was no over t t hr eat
8 l i ke t hat i n t he r ecor d, but t he per son who was hur l i ng
9 r aci al epi t het s at her was i n a posi t i on of aut hor i t y
over her , bot h accor di ng t o t he j ob descr i pt i on, al so
11 accor di ng t o her under st andi ng, accor di ng - -
12 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But t hat was al so - - t hat
13 woul d be f or a ver y conf i ned per i od. I t woul d onl y be
14 when t he - - when Vance was a par t - t i me empl oyee. Once
she i s a f ul l - t i me empl oyee t her e i sn' t t hat .
16 MR. ORTI Z: No, Your Honor . Ther e i s t wo
17 separ at e pr ovi si ons i n t he j ob descr i pt i on whi ch cover
18 t he whol e per i od of t i me her e. The harassment st ar t ed
19 ar ound September 2005, went i n t hrough August - - went t o
August 2007 wi t h one i nci dent , Mar ch 1st , I bel i eve i t
21 was, 2008. On J anuary 1st , 2007, Ms. Vance r ecei ved a
22 pr omot i on f r om par t - t i me t o f ul l - t i me.
23 Page 13 on t he J oi nt Appendi x has t hi s i t em
24 t hat you poi nt ed t o, J ust i ce, whi ch speci f i cal l y l i st s
among t he dut i es and r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he cat er i ng
13Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
14/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 speci al i st l eadi ng and di r ect i ng par t - t i me empl oyees.
2 However , page 12 of t he J oi nt Appendi x l i st s under
3 posi t i ons super vi sed by t he cat er i ng speci al i st , exact l y
4 Vance' s posi t i on. So when she moved f r om f ul l - t i me - -
sor r y, f r om par t - t i me t o f ul l - t i me on - - i n J anuar y
6 2007, t he super vi sory nexus i n t he j ob descr i pt i on
7 merel y j umped f r om page 13 t o page 12. But i t was
8 cover ed f or t hat whol e per i od of t i me.
9 J USTI CE ALI TO: What was t he most unpl easant
t hi ng t hat Davi s coul d have assi gned t he Pet i t i oner t o
11 do? Maybe choppi ng oni ons al l day, ever y day?
12 MR. ORTI Z: Cer t ai nl y wi t hi n t he - - wi t hi n
13 t he j ob dut i es t hat she t r adi t i onal l y di d, t he ki nd of
14 t hi ngs she had t o work wi t h, what she had t o do, t hi ngs
l i ke t hi s, wor ki ng wi t h oni ons, choppi ng oni ons al l day
16 mi ght be puni shment . Unf ort unatel y agai n, t hough, t he
17 r ecord wasn' t devel oped under an under st andi ng t hat al l
18 of t hi s woul d be r el evant .
19 J USTI CE ALI TO: But t hat woul d mat er i al l y
augment ? Choppi ng oni ons al l day woul d be enough?
21 MR. ORTI Z: Yes, Your Honor .
22 J USTI CE ALI TO: Choppi ng - - how about
23 choppi ng ot her t hi ngs, j ust choppi ng? You ar e t he
24 sous- chef , you are goi ng t o be choppi ng al l day ever y
day. Woul d t hat be enough?
14Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
15/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. ORTI Z: Possi bl y, Your Honor . I t
2 depends, agai n, on quest i ons whi ch woul d depend upon how
3 you had t o chop, how heavy t he kni ves were, whet her you
4 woul d get r epet i t i ve i nj ur i es.
J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Mr . Or t i z, di d she ever
6 have t hat aut hor i t y, because t he r ecor d as f ar as we
7 have i t says t hat t he work assi gnment s, what Vance was
8 doi ng, came f r om t he chef or f r om Ki mes, and t he most
9 t hat Davi s di d was t r ansmi t t he chef ' s or der s of wher e
peopl e woul d be st at i oned.
11 MR. ORTI Z: Your Honor , i t i s not qui t e
12 cl ear at t hi s poi nt . Vance, i n an i nt er nal
13 i nvest i gat i on at Bal l St at e Uni ver si t y, Ms. Vance t ol d
14 t he compl i ance of f i cer who was conduct i ng t he
i nvest i gat i on t hat Davi s del egat ed j obs t o her i n t he
16 ki t chen. That appears i n Document 59- 16 on page 2.
17 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel , may I i nt er rupt
18 a moment on - -
19 MR. ORTI Z: Yes, Your Honor .
J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: - - f ol l owi ng up on an
21 i ssue r ai sed i n par t by t he Chi ef and by J ust i ce
22 Gi nsbur g. Assumi ng t hat Davi s was a di r ect super vi sor ,
23 woul d t her e be an af f i r mat i ve def ense avai l abl e t o t he
24 empl oyer?
MR. ORTI Z: For sur e, Your - - f or sur e, Your
15Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
16/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 Honor . 23 posi t i on? 4
J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: That woul d be your
MR. ORTI Z: Yes. J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: That t hi s coul d not be
6 grounds t hat someone who di r ect s an empl oyee' s
7 day- t o- day act i vi t y shoul d be t r eat ed l i ke someone who
8 hasn' t act ual l y under t aken t he t hr eat because t he
9 si t uat i ons ar e di f f er ent .
MR. ORTI Z: Yes, Your Honor . Thi s i s - -
11 t hi s f al l s out of t he st r uctur e of t he af f i r mat i ve
12 def ense as l ai d out i n El l er t h and Far agher .
13 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: I s t hat what t hi s f i ght
14 i s about ? What i f we were t o say t hat t he EEOC' s t est
gover ned or t he Second Ci r cui t t est gover ned, but
16 because of t he nat ur e of t he di f f erence between f ormal
17 super vi sor s who t ake t angi bl e wor k act i vi t i es and
18 i nf ormal supervi sor s who t he empl oyer woul d have l ess
19 cont r ol over and l ess knowl edge about t hei r act i vi t i es,
t hat we woul d r equi r e an empl oyee t o compl ai n. Woul d
21 t hat be a cr azy r ul e, and why?
22 MR. ORTI Z: That t hi s Cour t woul d r equi r e
23 under t hose ci r cumst ances?
24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Woul d r equi r e, woul d
per mi t t he af f i r mat i ve def ense to be r ai sed by an
16Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
17/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 empl oyer .
2 MR. ORTI Z: I t doesn' t act ual l y map on wel l
3 t o t he st r uct ur e of t he af f i r mat i ve def enses l ai d out i n
4 El l er t h and Far agher .
J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: No, but t here i s a
6 di f f er ence bet ween t hose super vi sor s who t ake di r ect
7 act i vi t y, t angi bl e di r ect act i ons, who ar e i n power t o
8 do t hat , and supervi sor s who don' t have t hat power ,
9 because supervi sor s who don' t have t hat power ar e
super vi sed - - t hei r act i ons are super vi sed i n a way t hat
11 non- t angi bl e empl oyment supervi sor s are not .
12 MR. ORTI Z: But under t he exi st i ng
13 af f i r mat i ve - - af f i r mat i ve def ense, as I under st and i t ,
14 Your Honor , an empl oyee who doesn' t compl ai n, unl ess
t hey are r easonabl e i n not compl ai ni ng, i n most cases
16 woul d make t he af f i r mat i ve def ense unavai l abl e t o t he
17 empl oyer . I s i t t he quest i on concer ni ng t he di f f er ence
18 bet ween unr easonabl y f ai l i ng t o compl ai n - -
19 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: No, i t ' s whet her ,
whet her or not t hi s whol e f i ght i s over t hat i ssue.
21 MR. ORTI Z: That - - t hi s whol e - - t he f i ght
22 i s i n - - i n par t about t hat i ssue. That i s cer t ai nl y
23 not t he onl y - -
24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: No, because i t ' s al so
about t he bur den of pr oof .
17Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
18/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. ORTI Z: Yes.
2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: So i f we keep t he bur den
3 of proof wi t h r espect t o - - t o t he empl oyer r ai si ng t he
4 af f i r mat i ve def ense, does t hat sol ve hal f your pr obl em?
MR. ORTI Z: Yes, Your Honor . I t makes i t
6 bet t er .
7 And t hi s Cour t has r ecogni zed t he
8 af f i r mat i ve def ense appr opr i at el y al l ocat es t he bur dens
9 bet ween t he empl oyee and t he empl oyer goi ng f or war d.
Your Honor , t he Sevent h Ci r cui t r ul e,
11 al t hough unsuppor t ed by Respondent , i s suppor t ed by
12 sever al of t he Respondent s' ami ci . As I sai d, t hey t end
13 t o over sel l t he det er mi nat i veness of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t
14 r ul e. They exagger at e t he - - the uncer t ai nt y t hat
t hey pr edi ct wi l l happen under t he - -
16 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Woul d you t el l me what
17 you see as t he maj or di f f erence bet ween t he EEOC and t he
18 Second Ci r cui t r ul e, and why one i s compel l ed over t he
19 ot her?
I t ' s t he r egul at or y agency char ged wi t h
21 over si ght of - - of t he i mpl ement at i on of t he st at ut e.
22 Why shoul dn' t we gi ve def er ence t o i t on - -
23 MR. ORTI Z: Your Honor - -
24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: - - t he st andar d i t set s
f or t h?
18Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
19/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. ORTI Z: - - i t i s - - i t i s ent i t l ed t o
2 def erence under Ski dmore, no more. And i t i s our
3 underst andi ng, al t hough t he government - -
4 J USTI CE SCALI A: Excuse me. Why - - why - -
why no mor e? Why j ust Ski dmor e?
6 MR. ORTI Z: Because i t ' s - - i t ' s onl y
7 i nf or mal gui dance, Your Honor . I t hasn' t gone t hr ough
8 r ul emaki ng, f or mal adj udi cat i on and t hose pr ocesses
9 whi ch el evat e t he amount of def erence - -
J USTI CE SCALI A: That ' s an absol ut e r ul e?
11 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , Your Honor , i t ' s a l i t t l e
12 bi t cont ent i ous on t hi s Cour t . No, Your Honor , i t ' s a
13 l i t t l e bi t cont ent i ous on t hi s Cour t ; but , f ol l owi ng
14 Mead Pr oduct s, f or exampl e, i t woul dn' t be ent i t l ed t o
more t han Ski dmore - - def erence.
16 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Have you answer ed t he
17 argument i t shoul dn' t get any def erence because what - -
18 what t he EEOC gui dance does i s i t i s - - i t i s
19 i nt er pr et i ng t wo deci si ons of t hi s Cour t , and t hi s
Cour t , not t he EEOC, i s i n t he best posi t i on t o
21 det er mi ne what t hose t wo cases mean?
22 MR. ORTI Z: Wel l , what i t i s, Your Honor , i s
23 i t r epr esent s an i nt er pr et at i on of t he wor d "agent " i n
24 Ti t l e VI I .
Now, wher e - - wher e the st at ut e - - t he
19Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
20/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 st at ut or y t er m gi ves of f and t hi s Cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on
2 begi ns i s, i n some cases, a t ough quest i on.
3 But i n t hi s case, t he EEOC - - t he EEOC i s
4 r eal l y gi vi ng def i ni t i on t o t he wor d "agent " i n Ti t l e
VI I , not so much t hi s Cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i ons i n 6 Far agher and El l er t h. 7 I f t her e ar e no f ur t her quest i ons, Your 8 Honor , I woul d l i ke t o r eserve my r emai ni ng t i me f or 9 r ebut t al .
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel .
11 Mr . Sr i ni vasan?
12 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SRI SRI NI VASAN,
13 FOR UNI TED STATES, AS AMI CUS CURI AE,
14 I N SUPPORT OF NEI THER PARTY
MR. SRI NI VASAN: Thank you,
16 Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may i t pl ease t he Cour t :
17 When a per son cont rol s a subor di nat e' s dai l y
18 wor k act i vi t i es and subj ect s her t o har assment , t hat
19 per son qual i f i es as a super vi sor f or pur poses of t he
Far agher - El l er t h vi car i ous l i abi l i t y af f i r mat i ve def ense
21 f r amewor k.
22 When i t cont r ol s dai l y wor k act i vi t i es and,
23 t her ef ore, f or exampl e, can compel t he cl eani ng of
24 t oi l et s f or a year , t he pr i nci pl e t hat t he agency
r el at i onshi p augment s t he abi l i t y t o car r y out t he
20Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
21/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 har assment i s i mpl i cat ed i n t hat t he vi ct i m wi l l l ack
2 t he same abi l i t y t o r esi st t he har assment or t o r eport
3 i t as woul d be t he case i f t he harassment were conduct ed
4 by a coworker t hat - -
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: What about - - what
6 about t he musi c hypothet i cal ?
7 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l - -
8 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wher e - - wher e do
9 you t hi nk your t est comes out on t hat ?
MR. SRI NI VASAN: I t hi nk i t comes out , most
11 l i kel y, agai nst concl udi ng t hat t he per son i s a
12 super vi sor . And t he r eason i s t hat , under t he EEOC
13 enf or cement gui dance, t hat account s f or si t uat i ons i n
14 whi ch t he aut hor i t y i s exer ci sed over a l i mi t ed f i el d, a
l i mi t ed number of t asks or assi gnment s. And t hi s i s at
16 page 92( a) of t he pet i t i on appendi x.
17 And I t hi nk t hat woul d qual i f y under t hat
18 pr ovi si on because i t ' s l i mi t ed.
19 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Why - - i t doesn' t
r eal l y have t o do wi t h t he number of t asks. I t i sn' t an
21 assi gnment of t asks. I t ' s somet hi ng t hat cl ear l y
22 af f ect s t he dai l y act i vi t i es of t he empl oyee i n a way
23 t hat coul d be used t o i mpl ement or f aci l i t at e
24 har assment .
MR. SRI NI VASAN: I t coul d, Your Honor . I
21Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
22/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 don' t di sagr ee wi t h t hat , and I don' t di sagr ee t hat
2 t her e ar e goi ng t o be cases t hat r ai se i ssues at t he
3 mar gi ns.
4 But one way t o t hi nk about t he spect r um of
opt i ons avai l abl e t o t he Cour t t oday i s t o envi si on t hat
6 on one end, you have harassment t hat ' s perpet r at ed by a
7 coworker , and you consi der t he t ypes of har assment t hat
8 t hat mi ght ent ai l . And on t he other end, you have
9 har assment t hat ' s per pet r at ed by a super vi sor wi t h
aut hor i t y over t angi bl e empl oyment act i ons.
11 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: And - - and your
12 t est s sor t of use t hat , j ust as you' ve posed i t , as some
13 br oad cont i nuum i n whi ch we' r e goi ng t o have count l ess
14 cases t r yi ng t o f i gur e out whet her musi c f al l s cl oser t o
t hi s end or - - you know, what - - t he seni or empl oyee
16 cont r ol s t he t her most at , i s t hat cl oser t o t hi s end or
17 t hat end? Or cut t i ng oni ons?
18 I t seems t o me t hat ever y si ngl e case has
19 i t s own pecul i ar f act s, and cour t s ar e goi ng t o be - -
have to f i gur e out wher e on t he cont i nuum i t r esi des.
21 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l - - wel l , I guess, Your
22 Honor , as Your Honor put i t t o - - t o Pet i t i oner ' s
23 counsel , t he compet i ng approach woul d be t he approach
24 adopt ed by t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ; but , t hat appr oach has
some ser i ous f l aws.
22Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
23/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 For exampl e, i t woul dn' t cover t he
2 super vi sor ' s conduct t hat was at i ssue i n Far agher
3 i t sel f , wher e t he super vi sor t hr eat ened t hat he woul d
4 make t he har assment vi ct i m cl ean t he t oi l et s f or a year
i f she di dn' t succumb t o t he har assment . And I t hi nk
6 t hat ' s a pr et t y si gni f i cant cost .
7 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , i sn' t cl eani ng t he
8 t oi l et s a l i mi t ed - - i sn' t t he aut hor i t y t o deci de who
9 cl eans t he t oi l et s t he same as t he aut hor i t y t o deci de
what t he musi c i s goi ng t o be? I t ' s one t hi ng.
11 I t hought - - and your answer on t he musi c
12 was, wel l , t hat pr obabl y woul dn' t count because i t ' s t he
13 aut hor i t y t o deci de j ust one t hi ng.
14 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l , we don' t - - I guess,
we don' t know enough about t he t hr eat t o f orce her t o
16 cl ean t he t oi l et s f or a year t o know whet her i t ' s onl y
17 one t hi ng. But i t coul d be, f or exampl e, t hat i f
18 t her e - - i n t he scope of a par t i cul ar day, you have
19 t hr ee part i cul ar opt i ons as t o what you mi ght do,
moni t or t he beach, cl ean t he f aci l i t i es, i ncl udi ng t he
21 t oi l et s, or pr epar e meal s, t hen i t ' s somet hi ng t hat
22 cover s t he ent i r e day.
23 J USTI CE ALI TO: But your ar gument i s i f the
24 onl y aut hor i t y was t o deci de who cl eans t he t oi l et s,
t hen - - t hen t hat woul d not - - t hat woul dn' t count ,
23Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
24/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 because t hat ' s j ust one t hi ng.
2 MR. SRI NI VASAN: No, I thi nk t hat - - I don' t
3 t hi nk we have an answer t o t hat unt i l we know how much
4 of t he day' s work i s encompassed by cl eani ng t he
t oi l et s .
6 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: I thought i n Far agher i t
7 was t hat - - t hat t he l i f eguar d gave her her dai l y wor k
8 assi gnment s. He cont r ol l ed what she woul d do on t he
9 j ob.
MR. SRI NI VASAN: He - - he cont r ol l ed ever y
11 aspect of her - - of her day' s wor k, and cl eani ng t he
12 t oi l et s was one aspect of i t . So t hat was a
13 par t i cul ar l y poi gnant exampl e t hat he vi si t ed on her as
14 a way t o per pet uat e t he har assment .
J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , t hat can' t possi bl y be
16 what t he case means. Suppose t hat i t ' s - - i t ' s t he
17 assi gnment of of f i ces, and al l of t he of f i ces except one
18 have heat i ng and ai r condi t i oni ng, but one has no
19 heat i ng and no ai r condi t i oni ng.
And so - - and t hat ' s t he onl y aut hor i t y t hat
21 t hi s per son has i s t o assi gn desks. That per son says,
22 i f you don' t do what ever i t i s t hat I want you t o do,
23 I ' m put t i ng you i n t he of f i ce wher e t her e' s no heat i ng,
24 and t her e' s no ai r condi t i oni ng. And you woul d say t hat
doesn' t count because i t ' s j ust one t hi ng. I t ' s not a
24Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
25/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 br oad r ange of aut hor i t i es - - of aut hor i t i es.
2 MR. SRI NI VASAN: I t doesn' t const i t ut e
3 aut hor i t y over dai l y wor k act i vi t i es. And I guess
4 t hat ' s what t he EEOC gui dance aut hor i t i es - -
J USTI CE BREYER: Have you - -
6 MR. SRI NI VASAN: We haven' t encount er ed i t
7 i n r eal cases.
8 J USTI CE BREYER: Wel l , you' ve l ooked t hi s
9 up. And apparent l y, f or about a dozen years, t he EEOC
has had, as - - as an al t er nat i ve basi s f or qual i f yi ng as
11 a super vi sor , t he i ndi vi dual has aut hor i t y t o di r ect the
12 empl oyee' s dai l y wor k act i vi t i es.
13 And i n addi t i on, we have t hr ee ci r cui t s t hat
14 f or some per i od of years have been f ol l owi ng r oughl y t he
same ki nd of r ul e.
16 Now, has t hi s pr obl em of t he count r y musi c
17 or t he other probl ems r ai sed, have t hey t ur ned out t o be
18 a si gni f i cant pr obl em i n t hose ci r cui t s or f or t he EEOC?
19 MR. SRI NI VASAN: They haven' t ,
J ust i ce Br eyer .
21 J USTI CE BREYER: They have, or t hey have
22 not?
23 MR. SRI NI VASAN: They have not . I ' m sor r y.
24 They have not t ur ned out t o be an i ssue, and
t hat ' s what - -
25Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
26/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: How do you know
2 t hat? Ar e you j ust sayi ng t hey have not gener ated
3 act ual Feder al - - Feder al cour t repor t ed cases?
4 Do you have any i dea how t hi s wor ks on t he
ground when peopl e compl ai n about t he exerci se of
6 aut hor i t y by a coworker who has speci f i c
7 r esponsi bi l i t i es t hat mi ght be r evi ewed as super vi sory?
8 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l , they haven' t - - I
9 guess t hat ' s t wo components t o t he answer ,
Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce - - t hey haven' t gener at ed r epor t ed or
11 under r epor t ed deci si ons, as f ar as we' ve seen. And t hi s
12 i s not sci ent i f i c, and i t ' s j ust based on our
13 conversat i ons wi t h t he EEOC l awyer s who are char ged wi t h
14 deal i ng wi t h r i ght t o sue l et t er s and t he l i ke. They
haven' t encount er ed t hese sor t s of si t uat i ons.
16 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: The EEOC l awyer s
17 t hi nk t he EEOC pl an i s wor ki ng j ust f i ne.
18 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l , t hat - - I - - I
19 under st and t hat t hat ' s not ent i r el y sur pr i si ng, but - -
J USTI CE BREYER: But I guess t hey' d t el l
21 you. Ther e ar e t hr ee who si gned t he br i ef , or f our .
22 And I guess t hey' d t el l you, woul dn' t t hey - -
23 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Ri ght .
24 J USTI CE BREYER: - - what t he pr obl ems ar e,
i f t hey have pr obl ems.
26Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
27/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Ri ght . I n our 2 conver sat i ons wi t h t hem about t he way i n whi ch t hese 3 i ssues ar i se - - 4 J USTI CE BREYER: I mean, we can ask t he
ot her si de t he same quest i on. They' ve seen t he cases i n
6 t he ci r cui t s. Have t hey seen i nst ances i n t he EEOC or
7 bef or e t he ci r cui t s wher e i t ' s t ur ned out t o be a
8 ser i ous pr obl em, l i ke t he count r y musi c or any of t he
9 ot her hypot het i cal s r ai sed?
MR. SRI NI VASAN: And I don' t t hi nk i t has,
11 J ust i ce Br eyer .
12 And I t hi nk i t ' s i mpor t ant t o bear i n mi nd
13 t hat t he nat ur e of t hi s i nqui r y i s such t hat t her e' s
14 goi ng t o be cases at t he mar gi ns t hat r ai se di f f i cul t
quest i ons; but , i n El l er t h, t he Cour t r ecogni zed t hat .
16 J USTI CE KAGAN: Coul d I ask you how t he
17 Sevent h Ci r cui t t est wor ks i n oper at i on?
18 We' r e i n a uni ver si t y set t i ng her e, so l et
19 me gi ve you a uni ver si t y hypo. There' s a pr of essor , and
t he pr of essor has a secr et ar y. And t he pr of essor
21 subj ect s t hat secretary t o l i vi ng hel l , compl et e host i l e
22 wor k envi r onment on t he basi s of sex, al l r i ght ? But
23 t he pr of essor has absol ut el y no aut hor i t y t o f i r e t he
24 secr etary. What woul d t he Sevent h Ci r cui t say about
t hat si t uat i on?
27Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
28/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. SRI NI VASAN: That i f t her e' s no 2 aut hor i t y over - - t o - - t o di r ect annual 3 empl oyment act i ons, t hen - - 4 J USTI CE KAGAN: No, no, t he secr et ar y i s
f i r ed by t he head of secret ar i al ser vi ces. Pr of essor s
6 don' t have t he abi l i t y t o f i r e secret ar i es; but ,
7 pr of essor s do have t he abi l i t y t o make secret ar i al l i ves
8 l i vi ng hel l s. So what does t he Sevent h Ci r cui t say
9 about t hat?
MR. SRI NI VASAN: The prof essor woul d not
11 qual i f y as a super vi sor f or pur poses of El l er t h- Far agher
12 f r amewor k.
13 J USTI CE KAGAN: Under t he Sevent h Ci r cui t
14 t est .
MR. SRI NI VASAN: And so you' d l ook at i t as
16 a - - you' d l ook at t he pr of essor as a cowor ker , and
17 you' d appl y t he same st andards t hat appl i ed t o
18 harassment conduct ed by t he cowor ker .
19 J USTI CE KAGAN: Even t hough, of cour se, i t ' s
act ual l y mor e di f f i cul t f or t he secretary t o compl ai n
21 about t he pr of essor t han i t woul d be f or t he secr et ary
22 t o compl ai n about t he head of secret ar i al servi ces.
23 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Yes. And I t hi nk t hat ' s a
24 usef ul f r ame of r ef er ence t hat I was t r yi ng t o
ar t i cul at e ear l i er , whi ch i s t hat we can envi si on t he
28Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
29/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 cases as f al l i ng on a spect r um bet ween abi l i t y t o
2 compl ai n when t he har assment i s per pet r at ed by a
3 coworker on t he one hand, and abi l i t y t o compl ai n when
4 har assment i s per pet r at ed by a super vi sor wi t h t angi bl e
empl oyment aut hor i t y - -
6 J USTI CE KAGAN: And Mr . Sr i ni vasan, i f I can
7 j ust cont i nue on about t hi s, because I j ust don' t even
8 under st and t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t est . Woul d t he Sevent h
9 Ci r cui t t est al so say t hat - - t hat t hat per son i s not a
super vi sor even i f t he pr of essor eval uat es t he secr et ar y
11 on a year l y basi s?
12 MR. SRI NI VASAN: The Sevent h Ci r cui t woul d
13 say t hat as f ar as we can t el l . They don' t appear t o
14 have a pr ovi so f or ci r cumst ances i n whi ch t he harasser
has a r ol e i n det ermi ni ng t angi bl e empl oyment act i ons,
16 because t hat i s one t hi ng t hat t he EEOC gui dance t akes
17 account of .
18 I t ' s t hat - - not j ust t hat somebody count s
19 as a supervi sor when t hey t hemsel ves undert ake t angi bl e
empl oyment act i on, but i f t hey have a subst ant i al r ol e
21 i n maki ng r ecommendat i ons t hat i n t ur n t r i gger t angi bl e
22 empl oyment act i ons, t he EEOC woul d t ake t he posi t i on
23 t hat t hat qual i f i es. Now, t hat ' s not an i ssue i n t hi s
24 case, but t hat ' s - -
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: You' ve - - you' ve
29Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
30/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 t al ked sever al t i mes about t hi s goi ng al ong t he
2 spect r um. Wher e - - wher e are we supposed t o cut of f
3 t he - - wher e' s t he cut t i ng l i ne i n t he spect r um?
4 MR. SRI NI VASAN: Wel l , I t hi nk t hat t he - -
cont r ol over dai l y wor k act i vi t i es i s wher e we woul d
6 draw t he l i ne. And t hat ' s what has come up t he most i n
7 t he cases. The r epor t ed deci si ons have conf l i ct s on - -
8 have a conf l i ct on t hat i ssue, and t hat i s wher e t he
9 EEOC gui dance draws t he l i ne.
Now, I t hi nk i t woul d be hel pf ul , i f t he
11 Cour t wer e goi ng t o i ssue an opi ni on t hat adopt s t hat
12 l i ne, t o el abor at e on - - on t hat l i ne a l i t t l e bi t i n
13 t he f ol l owi ng sense: That r el ayi ng i nst r uct i ons t hat
14 are - - t hat ar e di ssemi nated by one per son woul dn' t
count f or t hose pur poses. That ' s i n t he EEOC gui dance.
16 And - - and i t ' s t he f unct i ons of a j ob t hat act ual l y
17 mat t er , not t he j ob t i t l e. That i s al so i n t he EEOC
18 gui dance.
19 So I t hi nk t her e ar e some aspect s of t he
EEOC gui dance t hat el aborate on t hat l i ne about cont r ol
21 over dai l y act i vi t i es t hat I t hi nk I woul d commend t o
22 t he Cour t , t hat i t mi ght wel l - -
23 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Do we have a devel oped
24 r ecord enough t o do t hat i n t hi s case?
MR. SRI NI VASAN: I ' m sorr y? I di dn' t hear
30Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
31/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 you.
2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Do - - do we have a
3 devel oped r ecord enough? Pet i t i oner ' s counsel says we
4 don' t , t hat t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t est di dn' t per mi t t hem
t o devel op t he r ecor d suf f i ci ent l y t o cl ar i f y al l of
6 t hese i ssues. We cer t ai nl y have sni ppet s or - - or l ack
7 sni ppet s, as t he case may be. But i s t he r ecor d
8 suf f i ci ent l y devel oped f or t he Cour t to even
9 pronounce - - make pronouncement s of t hat nat ure?
MR. SRI NI VASAN: I t hi nk - - I t hi nk t he r eal
11 quest i on, J ust i ce Sot omayor , i s whet her the par t i es had
12 a suf f i ci ent oppor t uni t y t o devel op t he r ecor d. Because
13 i f you t ake t he r ecor d i n t he case as a gi ven, we t hi nk
14 t hat t he r ecor d woul d suppor t t he grant of summary
j udgment f or Bal l St at e Uni ver si t y, because t here i sn' t
16 a suf f i ci ent showi ng i n t he r ecor d i f you t ake i t as a
17 gi ven t hat t he r el evant super vi sor y - - t he r el evant
18 put at i ve super vi sor y empl oyee, Davi s, had cont r ol over
19 day- t o- day wor k act i vi t i es.
The quest i on t hat r emai ns i s whether t he
21 r ecord shoul d be al l owed t o be expanded.
22 J USTI CE ALI TO: The concl usi on i n your br i ef
23 i s t hat t he j udgment of t he cour t of appeal s shoul d be
24 vacat ed and t he case r emanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs,
and now - - now you ar e tel l i ng us t hat we shoul d - - we
31Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
32/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 shoul d basi cal l y wr i t e an opi ni on on summary j udgment .
2 MR. SRI NI VASAN: No. I t hi nk i f you t ake
3 t he r ecord as a gi ven, t hat a grant of summary j udgment
4 i n f avor of t he empl oyer woul d be i n or der . But i n t he
nor mal cour se what t hi s Cour t does when i t announces a
6 new st andard i s i t r emands f or t he l ower cour t s t o deal
7 wi t h t he appl i cat i on of t he st andar d t o t he f act s. And
8 t he concl usi on i n our br i ef i s j ust , I t hi nk, a
9 par r ot i ng of t hat nor mal concl usi on.
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel .
11 Mr . Gar r e.
12 ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE
13 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
14 MR. GARRE: Thank you, Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce,
and may i t pl ease t he Cour t :
16 The j udgment of t he cour t of appeal s shoul d
17 be af f i r med because t he r ecor d est abl i shes t hat t he onl y
18 empl oyees whose st atus i s at i ssue l acked t he
19 super vi sor y aut hor i t y necessar y t o t r i gger vi car i ous
l i abi l i t y under Ti t l e VI I .
21 J USTI CE ALI TO: We t ook t hi s case t o deci de
22 whet her t he Far agher and El l er t h - - and El l er t h
23 super vi sor y l i abi l i t y r ul e i s l i mi t ed t o t hose har asser s
24 who have t he power t o hi r e, f i r e, demot e, pr omot e,
t r ansf er , or di sci pl i ne t hei r vi ct i m. And your answer
32Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
33/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 t o t hat i s no; i s t hat r i ght ?
2 MR. GARRE: That ' s r i ght . We don' t t hi nk
3 t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t est i s t he compl et e answer t o t he
4 quest i on of who may qual i f y as a super vi sor . But we
t hi nk i t ' s cl ear t hat t he - - t he per son whose st at us i s
6 at i ssue di d not qual i f y and t her ef or e, t he j udgment
7 shoul d be af f i r med. Thi s Cour t - -
8 J USTI CE ALI TO: Al l r i ght . Wel l , i f we - -
9 i f we agr ee wi t h t hat wi t hout havi ng any part y def endi ng
t he r ul e t hat was adopt ed by t hr ee ci r cui t s, t hen
11 sur el y - - wel l , t hen, why shoul dn' t we j ust r emand t hi s
12 case f or t he l ower cour t s t o deci de t hi s, t hi s summary
13 j udgment i ssue, and - - and permi t f ur t her devel opment of
14 t he r ecor d i f t he r ecor d i sn' t f ul l y devel oped?
MR. GARRE: Wel l , most i mpor t ant l y, J ust i ce
16 Al i t o, because t he cour t s need gui dance on how t o appl y
17 t he EEOC and t he Second Ci r cui t st andar d. The best way
18 t o pr ovi de t hat gui dance i s t o do what t hi s Cour t of t en
19 does, whi ch i s t o appl y t he f act s t o t he st andar d.
I n t hi s case, appl yi ng t he r ecor d f act s t o
21 t he st andar d t hat we t hi nk appl i es, t he "mat er i al l y
22 enabl es t he har assment " st andar d, i t ' s cl ear t hat Ms.
23 Davi s, t he per son who i s at i ssue, does not qual i f y as a
24 super vi sor . And t he r eason why i t ' s cl ear i s t he r ecor d
i s uncont r adi ct ed that ei t her t he chef or Mr . Ki mes made
33Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
34/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 t he dai l y assi gnment s t hr ough t he pr ep sheet s. The pr ep
2 sheets ar e what ever y empl oyee i n t he ki t chen got each
3 day and t hey woul d t el l you: Di ce veget abl es f or 60
4 peopl e; prepare boxed l unches f or 20; prepare si x
veget abl e t r ays.
6 That ' s - - t hat was t hei r dai l y assi gnment s,
7 and t he r ecor d i s absol ut el y cl ear , J A 2 277 t o 278, J A
8 424 - - t hat al l t he empl oyees got t he pr ep sheet s f r om
9 t he chef or Mr . Ki mes.
I t ' s al so absol ut el y cl ear t hat Mr . Ki mes
11 was t he one who cont r ol l ed t he schedul e i n t he ki t chen.
12 He i s t he one t hat t ol d empl oyees what t i mes of days
13 t hat t hey coul d work. He cont r ol l ed t he schedul e.
14 J USTI CE ALI TO: I under st and Mr . Or t i z t o
say t hat t her e' s at l east a di sput e of f act about
16 whet her Davi s coul d have cont r ol l ed what Pet i t i oner di d
17 on a dai l y basi s.
18 MR. GARRE: Ther e i s - - t her e i s nei t her a
19 mat er i al nor genui ne di sput e on t hat , Your Honor . I t at
t he ver y - -
21 J USTI CE ALI TO: Doesn' t her j ob descr i pt i on
22 say t hat she can assi gn t asks i n t he ki t chen?
23 MR. GARRE: But t hey - - t hey omi t t he - - t he
24 cl ause t hat f ol l ows, whi ch i s cri t i cal , whi ch i s "vi a
demonst r at i on, coachi ng, or over seei ng t o ensur e
34Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
35/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 ef f i ci ency. " That i s on page J oi nt Appendi x 13. And
2 t hat j ob descr i pt i on has t o be r ead i n l i ght of t he
3 r ecor d t hat makes cr yst al cl ear t hat i t was t he chef who
4 di d t he dai l y assi gnment s f or t he pr ep sheet s.
And ther e - - and ther e ar e exampl es of t he
6 pr ep sheet s as an exhi bi t t o Ms. Ful t z' s af f i davi t , t he
7 af f i davi t s at 424 of t he J oi nt Appendi x. The - - t he
8 exhi bi t s ar e LLL and J J J - -
9 J USTI CE SCALI A: We di dn' t t ake t hi s case
t o - - t o deci de t hose f act ual quest i ons.
11 MR. GARRE: Your Honor , you - -
12 J USTI CE SCALI A: We r eal l y di dn' t . We t ook
13 i t pr i nci pal l y t o deci de whet her t he Sevent h Ci r cui t
14 r ul e was - - was r i ght or not . And you don' t even def end
t hat . So t her e i s nobody her e def endi ng t he Sevent h
16 Ci r cui t .
17 MR. GARRE: Wel l , Your Honor has excel l ent
18 br i ef i ng def endi ng t he Sevent h Ci r cui t . The Chamber of
19 Commerce and ot her ami ci have def ended i t . We cer t ai nl y
t hi nk t hat i t - - t hat - - t hat i t ' s a super i or - -
21 J USTI CE SCALI A: They ar e not t al ki ng t o us
22 her e, are t hey?
23 MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor . We t hi nk i t ' s a
24 super i or br i ght l i ne, but , as we say i n our br i ef , we
t hi nk t hat ul t i mat el y t hi s Cour t ' s precedent s compel
35Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
36/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 t hat t he Cour t r ej ect t hat . And I t hi nk most - - most
2 squarel y we l ook at the Far agher deci si on. We l ook at
3 l i f eguar d Si l ver man i n Far agher , who had t he aut hor i t y
4 t o cont r ol al l aspect s of t he vi ct i m' s schedul e and
dai l y act i vi t i es i n a vi r t ual l y unchecked manner .
6 So i f the Cour t i s l ooki ng f or an exampl e
7 t hat i t want s t o poi nt t o of someone who coul d qual i f y
8 under t he non- Sevent h Ci r cui t cat egor y, we t hi nk t hat
9 l i f eguar d Si l ver man, f r om t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s, woul d
be t he exampl e t hat t hi s Cour t woul d hol d out .
11 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Was t hat - - t hat quest i on
12 wasn' t pr esent ed. I t was - - i t was j ust assumed t hat - -
13 t hat Si l ver man woul d qual i f y as a - - as a super vi sor .
14 MR. GARRE: That - - t hat ' s absol ut el y r i ght ,
J ust i ce Gi nsbur g. And I t hi nk, f or some of t he r easons
16 t hat J ust i ce Kagan br ought up i n her col l oquy wi t h - -
17 wi t h Mr . Sr i ni vasan, I t hi nk t he l ogi c of t he Cour t ' s
18 pr ecedent s, agency pr i nci pl es adopt ed, woul d l ead t o t he
19 concl usi on t hat someone who does cont r ol vi r t ual l y al l
aspect s of one' s schedul e but yet l acks t he aut hor i t y t o
21 hi r e, f i r e, or demot e, never t hel ess st i l l woul d be
22 qual i f i ed as someone who - -
23 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Ever y - - ever y
24 t i me - - ever y t i me you adopt a r ul e r ather t han a
mul t i f act or anal ysi s, t her e ar e goi ng t o be par t i cul ar
36Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
37/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 cases t hat f al l out si de t he r ul e t hat l ook l i ke a har sh
2 r esul t . Now, her e i t si mpl y af f ect s t he nat ur e. I t
3 doesn' t gi ve any i mmuni t y f or har assment , i t j ust
4 af f ect s t he nat ur e of t he showi ng t hat mi ght be made.
You have no di f f i cul t y, as r epresent i ng an
6 empl oyer , by sayi ng t hat i n ever y case an al l egat i on of
7 t hi s sor t i s made you have t o go t hr ough a case- by- case
8 descri pt i on of t he par t i cul ar r esponsi bi l i t i es, whet her
9 i t ' s t he t her most at , whet her i t ' s t he musi c, whet her
i t ' s t he assi gnment of ever yt hi ng - - t hat t he empl oyee
11 does, and deci de on t hat basi s whet her or not you shoul d
12 compensat e t he vi ct i m, or - - or whether or not you
13 shoul d go t o cour t ?
14 MR. GARRE: We do have gr eat di f f i cul t y,
Your Honor . Fi r st of al l , i f we ar e wr ong about what
16 t hi s Cour t ' s pr ecedent s compel , t hen t hi s Cour t shoul d
17 adopt t he Sevent h Ci r cui t pr i nci pl e, and we' ve - - we' ve
18 sai d t hat i n our br i ef , i f we' r e wr ong i n our
19 under st andi ng of t he Cour t ' s pr ecedent s.
Secondl y, we t hi nk that t he - - t he Cour t can
21 and shoul d est abl i sh meani ngf ul l i mi t s on what t hi s
22 br oader cat egor y of super vi sors woul d r equi r e, and I
23 t hi nk t he case l aw i l l ust r at es t hat . I f you l ook at t he
24 l eadi ng ci r cui t s who appl y t he st andar d - -
CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , I t hi nk - - I
37Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
38/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 t hi nk your f r i end on t he other s i de was - - made a good
2 poi nt i n hi s r epl y br i ef , whi ch i s t he var i et y of
3 ci r cumst ances you t hi nk cour t s shoul d l ook at j ust
4 happen t o cor r espond wi t h t he f act ual i ssues t hat you
woul d have r esol ved i n your f avor .
6 MR. GARRE: Wel l , I - - I woul d t ake i ssue
7 wi t h t hat . We - - we t r i ed t o pr ovi de gui depost s t hat
8 woul d be hel pf ul . But i f you l ook at , f or exampl e, t he
9 pr i nci pl e t hat t he EEOC agr ees wi t h, whi ch - - whi ch i s
j ust t hat l i mi t ed or mar gi nal occasi on aut hor i t y t o l ead
11 or over see by vi r t ue of a paper t i t l e, i t s gr ade, or
12 seni or i t y i s not suf f i ci ent .
13 J USTI CE SCALI A: What does t hat have t o do
14 wi t h agency? That ' s what I don' t under st and. Why - -
why do any of t hese t est s have t o do wi t h agency?
16 MR. GARRE: Wel l , Your Honor - -
17 J USTI CE SCALI A: I mean, I can under st and
18 Congr ess wr i t i ng a st at ut e t hat says - - you know, any - -
19 any per son gi ven - - gi ven aut hor i t y by t he empl oyer ,
whi ch aut hor i t y i s used t o make i t mor e di f f i cul t f or a
21 per son t o compl ai n about r aci al or sexual har assment , i s
22 bad. But t he st at ut e doesn' t say t hat . I t says appl y
23 agency pr i nci pl es.
24 How does agency have anyt hi ng t o do wi t h t he
l i ne you' r e ar gui ng t hat we t ake her e?
38Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
39/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. GARRE: What t hi s Cour t sai d i n Far agher
2 and El l er t h - - and I appr eci at e t hat you di ssent ed i n
3 t he case, but what t hi s Cour t sai d was i t adopt ed
4 Sect i on 219( 2) ( d) of t he Rest atement ( Second) of Agency,
t he not i on t hat i f - - i f t her e was - - i f t he empl oyee
6 was ai ded i n t he accompl i shment of t he har assment by
7 vi r t ue of an agency r el at i on, t hat t hat woul d be t he
8 agency t r i gger f or l i abi l i t y.
9 J USTI CE SCALI A: Then why not l eave i t
t her e? I f t hat ' s what t he agency i s - -
11 MR. GARRE: And RMA t hen - -
12 J USTI CE SCALI A: - - t hen you don' t need i t
13 at al l . So t he musi c - - t he musi c woul d - - t he
14 t her most at woul d qual i f y. I t woul d al l qual i f y.
MR. GARRE: I don' t t hi nk i t woul d, Your
16 Honor , because we agr ee, cer t ai nl y, wi t h t he EEOC t hat
17 t her e ar e mat er i al l i mi t s t o how f ar t hat pr i nci pl e
18 coul d be st r et ched.
19 The Cour t i n El l er t h made cl ear t hat t her e
wer e l i mi t s t o t he vi car i ous l i abi l i t y of empl oyer s i n
21 t hi s cont ext .
22 J USTI CE SCALI A: Why? Why? I mean, i f
23 t hat ' s your pr i nci pl e, appl y t he pr i nci pl e.
24 MR. GARRE: Wel l , f or t he ver y - -
J USTI CE SCALI A: I f you ar e ai ded - - you
39Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
40/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 know, you' r e goi ng t o wor k i n a col d r oom unl ess you - -
2 you know, compl y wi t h my sexual advances, appl y t he
3 pr i nci pl e. What ' s so har d about t hat ? That ' s a cl ear
4 l i ne.
MR. GARRE: Thi s i s t he bal ance I t hi nk t hat
6 t he Cour t st r uck i n El l er t h, Your Honor , whi ch was - - i t
7 t ook i nt o account t hat t he st atut e was passed agai nst
8 t he backdr op of agency pr i nci pl es; but , yet , Congr ess
9 al so was cogni zant t hat i mposi ng vi car i ous l i abi l i t y on
t he empl oyer f or act s t hat t he Cour t r ecogni zed wer e not
11 t hemsel ves aut hor i zed by t he empl oyer , t hat t hat was a
12 puni t i ve aspect of t hat , and t he Cour t woul d est abl i sh
13 l i mi t s.
14 And I t hi nk our posi t i on t akes i nt o account
t hat t her e have t o be l i mi t s i n t hi s ar ea, on t he extent
16 of vi car i ous l i abi l i t y, i n or der t o gi ve ef f ect to
17 Congr ess' s i nt ent ; but , al so r ecogni zes, i n t he
18 si t uat i on l i ke you had wi t h t he l i f eguar d i n Far agher ,
19 t hat t hat per son di d have aut hor i t y t hat woul d assi st i n
t he har assment dat e me or cl ean t he toi l et s, as
21 t he l i f eguar d i n Far agher sai d.
22 And so t he Cour t , I t hi nk, st r uck a
23 r easonabl e bal ance. And t aki ng t he bal ance and what
24 t hi s Cour t sai d, we t hi nk t he pr oper way t o r esol ve t hi s
case i s t o adopt somet hi ng l i ke t he EEOC r ul e or t he
40Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
41/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 Second Ci r cui t r ul e, but t o make cl ear t her e ar e l i mi t s.
2 And t he best way t o make cl ear t hat t her e ar e l i mi t s i s
3 t o make cl ear t hat on t he r ecor d i n t hi s case Ms. Davi s
4 di d not qual i f y as a super vi sor .
Now, my f r i end sai d t hey di dn' t have t he
6 oppor t uni t y t o devel op evi dence t o t he cont r ar y; but ,
7 t he f act i s, f r om t he out set , t hey l i t i gat ed t hi s case
8 as i f t he Sevent h Ci r cui t st andar d di d not appl y.
9 The r easons t hat they gave f or why Ms. Davi s
was a super vi sor , i n t he l ower cour t , was t hat , one,
11 t hey poi nt ed t o t he j ob descr i pt i on, t hat she had t hi s
12 ot her aut hor i t y t o " l ead and di r ect , " and t hey al so
13 poi nt ed t o t he f act t hat she di dn' t cl ock i n.
14 Those ar e i r r el evant under t he Sevent h
Ci r cui t t est . So al l al ong, t hey had i n t hei r mi nd t hat
16 t hey want ed t o t r y t o show t hat Davi s was di f f er ent , and
17 i t di d have some mar gi nal aut hor i t y t o l ead - -
18 J USTI CE ALI TO: What gui dance woul d your - -
19 what gui dance woul d t he ki nd of opi ni on t hat you' r e
suggest i ng we wr i t e r eal l y pr ovi de? The - - t he gui dance
21 woul d be t hat i f someone has no aut hor i t y t o assi gn
22 dai l y wor k, t hen t hat per son i sn' t - - and al so has no
23 aut hor i t y t o hi r e, f i r e, pr omot e, et cet er a, t hen t hat
24 per son i sn' t a super vi sor .
How much gui dance i s t hat?
41Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
42/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 MR. GARRE: I t hi nk i t ' s a l ot of gui dance,
2 J ust i ce Al i t o. I t hi nk t hat t he f l i p s i de of that i s
3 t he Cour t woul d make cl ear t hat merel y havi ng some
4 occasi onal or mar gi nal aut hor i t y t o l ead or di r ect by
vi r t ue of one' s bet t er paper t i t l e or seni or i t y i s not
6 suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger vi car i ous l i abi l i t y. I t hi nk
7 t hat ' s goi ng t o r esol ve t he mi ne- r un of t he cases i n
8 whi ch t hi s quest i on has come up and been l i t i gated, at
9 l east t o t he cour t s of appeal s.
I f you l ook, f or exampl e, at t he di f f er ence
11 bet ween somet hi ng l i ke t he Mack case out of t he Second
12 Ci r cui t and t he Mi kel s case out of t he Four t h Ci r cui t ,
13 i n Mi kel s, we had an exampl e of t wo pol i ce of f i cer s, one
14 had a hi gher paper r ank, cor por al ver sus pr i vat e, and i t
was al l eged t hat t he cor por al was a super vi sor . And t he
16 cour t sai d, no, no, no, he' s not a super vi sor , al l t her e
17 i s, i s some mar gi nal occasi onal aut hor i t y. That ' s not
18 suf f i ci ent .
19 I t was cl ear t hat t he vi ct i m i n t hat case
wasn' t shy about t el l i ng t he har asser wher e to go, t o
21 t el l hi m of f . And t hat ' s t he ki nd of - -
22 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But why shoul d t hat - -
23 why shoul d t hat mat t er? I know you sai d t hat i n your
24 br i ef , Mr . Gar r e, i f t he - - i f t he al l eged vi ct i m t al ked
back.
42Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
43/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 But i n one of t he ver y f i r st cases t hat we
2 had i n t hi s l i ne, Har r i s v. For kl i f t , t her e was - - i t
3 was t he boss, so t her e was no quest i on about super vi sor ,
4 and he was r eal l y maki ng t hi ngs hard f or t hi s empl oyee;
but , she was ver y f i r m, and she t al ked back to hi m.
6 But , st i l l , t hat ' s not what we sai d t hat
7 count ed. We sai d, i s she bei ng subj ect ed t o t er ms and
8 condi t i ons of empl oyment t hat she woul d not be subj ect ed
9 t o but f or her sex.
MR. GARRE: Ri ght . And we - - we don' t t hi nk
11 t hat t hat ' s a di sposi t i ve cr i t er i on. We r ecogni ze t he
12 poi nt t hat t he per son get s t o est abl i sh super i or abi l i t y
13 t o st and up t o despi cabl e t r eatment . But I t hi nk what
14 our poi nt i s, i s t hat i t ' s par t of t he equat i on t hat you
woul d l ook at .
16 I n essence, di d t he per son t r eat t he al l eged
17 har asser l i ke a co- empl oyee, or di d t he per son t r eat t he
18 al l eged har asser l i ke a super vi sor ? And i n t hi s case,
19 t he r ecor d i s cl ear t hat she t r eat ed her l i ke a
co- empl oyee, someone who - - t hey obvi ousl y had
21 di sagr eement s among t hem.
22 And I t hi nk t hat ' s what we t ake t hi s pi ece
23 of evi dence t o assi st t he Cour t on t he quest i on
24 pr esent ed. I t hi nk - - but we t hi nk what was suf f i ci ent
t o resol ve t he quest i on pr esent ed i s t he cl ear and
43Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
44/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 unr ef ut ed evi dence t hat t he pr ep sheet s, t he dai l y
2 act i vi t i es wer e assi gned by t he chef or Mr . Ki mes, t hat
3 Mr . Ki mes had t he aut hor i t y t o cont r ol t he schedul e.
4 And i f you want t o go f ur t her t han t hat , t he
r ecor d al so shows t hat Mr . Ki mes had the aut hor i t y t o
6 r evi ew - - t o do annual r evi ews. Mr . Ki mes had t he
7 aut hor i t y t o eval uat e. He had al l t he ki nd of aut hor i t y
8 t hat one woul d expect i n a super vi sor .
9 And so you woul d ask t he quest i on, what ' s
l ef t ? Essent i al l y not hi ng. And what ever i s l ef t , we
11 agr ee wi t h t he EEOC, i s not , as a mat t er of l aw,
12 suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger vi car i ous l i abi l i t y.
13 That doesn' t mean she can' t pr esent her
14 cl ai m. I t - - i t means t hat i t ' s j ust si mpl y anal yzed
under t he f r amework f or co- worker s, i n whi ch she bears
16 t he bur den of est abl i shi ng t hat t he empl oyer was
17 negl i gent i n not r espondi ng t o i t .
18 And as J udge Wood, f or t he cour t of appeal s ,
19 and J udge Bar ker made cl ear i n t hei r det ai l ed opi ni ons,
t hi s was not a si t uat i on wher e t he empl oyer st uck i t s
21 head i n t he sand and i gnor ed i nci dent s of unpl easant r i es
22 or , i n some cases, despi cabl e r aci al epi t het s - -
23 J USTI CE ALI TO: I f you wer e wi l l i ng t o
24 concede t hat t hi s woul d be a cl ose case under t he Second
Ci r cui t st andard or under t he EEOC gui dance, t hen t her e
44Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
45/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 mi ght be an argument i n f avor of our appl yi ng t hose
2 t est s - - or one of t hose t est s t o t he f act s of t he case,
3 because t hen t hat mi ght pr ovi de some gui dance, even
4 t hough we are supposed t o be a cour t of r evi ew, not a
cour t of f i r st vi ew.
6 But you' r e sayi ng t hi s i s an ext r emel y weak
7 case under t hose st andar ds; and, t her ef or e, what i s - -
8 what benef i t i s t her e i n our appl yi ng t hi s? J ust send
9 i t back and have i t done i n t he normal cour se by t he
cour t of appeal s or by t he di st r i ct cour t .
11 MR. GARRE: Wel l , Your Honor , we don' t t hi nk
12 i t ' s a cl ose case, but my f r i end does, and hi s ami ci do.
13 And I t hi nk t he damagi ng si gnal t hat t hi s Cour t woul d
14 send by r emandi ng on t hi s r ecord woul d be t hat , what ever
i t mi ght say i n i t s opi ni on, t hat woul d have vi r t ual l y
16 no f orce i n t er ms of est abl i shi ng a st andard t hat made
17 cl ear t hat t hi s - - whatever el se may be t r ue about what
18 woul d qual i f y, somet hi ng l i ke t hi s does not qual i f y.
19 And, agai n, l i ke t hi s Cour t di d i n t he
Gl obal Tech case, when t he Cour t est abl i shes a st andard,
21 of t ent i mes, i t appl i es t he st andar d t o t he f act s and
22 appr eci at es t hat t hat ' s t he best way, t he most j udi ci al
23 way of provi di ng gui dance on what t hat s t andar d means.
24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Mr . Gar r e, t her e i s one
BSU i nt er nal document t hat - - a not e t o t he f i l e by a
45Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
46/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 compl i ance of f i cer , who appar ent l y i nvest i gat ed one of
2 t he compl ai nt s, t hat says t hat - - Ki mes i s r ecor ded as
3 sayi ng - - he' s t he avowed super vi sor - - t hat he, quot e,
4 "knows Davi s has gi ven di r ect i on t o Vance, and t hat he
j ust doesn' t know what el se t o do. "
6 Doesn' t t hat def eat summar y j udgment on i t s
7 f ace?
8 MR. GARRE: I t doesn' t , Your Honor , i f you
9 agr ee wi t h our pr i nci pl e, t hat t he EEOC al so agr ees
wi t h, t hat havi ng some l i mi t ed or mar gi nal aut hor i t y t o
11 l ead or di r ect , as a mat t er of l aw, i s not suf f i ci ent .
12 So t hat t hat pi ece of evi dence, gi vi ng i t i t s
13 r easonabl e i nf er ence, woul d not be suf f i ci ent t o cr eat e
14 a mat er i al i ssue. I t al so woul dn' t be suf f i ci ent
cr eat i ng - - l ooki ng at t he body of t he evi dence, whi ch
16 makes cr yst al cl ear t hat t he pr ep sheet s ar e r eal l y what
17 was dr i vi ng t he dai l y act i vi t i es i n t hi s wor kpl ace. And
18 i t was Ki mes or t he chef t hat di d t he pr ep sheet s, not
19 Ms. Davi s at al l .
And i t - - and i t was al so not mat er i al i n
21 l i ght of t he evi dence t hat Mr . Ki mes di d t he schedul e.
22 Ms. Davi s was asked at her deposi t i on on
23 page 135, quot e, "Was t her e ever" - - "have you ever been
24 assi gned t o a l ess meani ngf ul or f ul f i l l i ng j ob
cl assi f i cat i on?" And her r esponse was yes, and she
46Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
47/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 poi nted t o an exampl e by Mr . Ki mes, because i t was
2 Mr . Ki mes who had t he aut hor i t y t o make t hose
3 assi gnment s, not Ms. Davi s.
4 So t he mer e f act t hat you' ve got some
mar gi nal evi dence dr awn f r om sni ppet s, gi vi ng i t a
6 r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat she at t i mes had some abi l i t y
7 t o l ead or di r ect , as t he j ob descri pt i on says, "by
8 coachi ng, demonst r at i on or over seei ng, " i s not
9 suf f i ci ent as a mat t er of l aw t o ent i t l e her t o summar y
j udgment , nor do we t hi nk t hat t hi s Cour t shoul d t ake
11 t he unusual st ep of r emandi ng so t hat she can di g i nt o
12 event s si x years ol d t hr ough new di scover y.
13 Agai n - -
14 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Gar r e, coul d I ask you
about t hat ? You sai d bef or e t hat t her e i s no - - not hi ng
16 t o suggest t hat she l ef t anythi ng on t he t abl e because
17 of t he nat ur e of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t st andar d.
18 So what ' s t he best pl ace i n t he r ecor d f or
19 us t o l ook - - t o deci de t hat quest i on as t o whet her she
at al l di dn' t pr esent or di dn' t devel op evi dence because
21 of t he nat ur e of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t st andar d?
22 MR. GARRE: Wel l , f i r st , I woul d l ook at her
23 summary j udgment br i ef s, Your Honor , and i n t hose br i ef s
24 she argued t hat Davi s was a supervi sor because, one,
under t he j ob descr i pt i on she had t he aut hor i t y t o l ead
47Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
48/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 and di r ect , t he same sor t s of t hi ngs t hat we ar e t al ki ng
2 now and woul d be t al ki ng about under t he EEOC and Second
3 Ci r cui t t est s. And, t wo, she poi nt s t o t he f act t hat
4 t hey di dn' t cl ock i n, agai n somet hi ng t hat i s i r r el evant
under t he Sevent h Ci r cui t t est .
6 So t hi s wasn' t a case wher e t he l i t i gant
7 f el t t hemsel ves bound by t he l egal st andard and one
8 coul d sur mi se t hat t hey woul d have pur sued i t
9 di f f er ent l y. I thi nk I woul d l ook at t hat f i r st . And
t hen I woul d l ook at her deposi t i on t r anscr i pt whi ch i s
11 i n t he J oi nt Appendi x and t he t hr ee af f i davi t s t hat she
12 put i n, i n t hi s case, whi ch ar e i n t he J oi nt Appendi x.
13 At some poi nt you woul d expect her to come
14 al ong and t r y t o r ebut t he not i on t hat Mr . Ki mes and
Ms. Ful t z assi gned t he dai l y act i vi t i es t hr ough t he pr ep
16 sheet s. I n f act , i t ' s j ust t he cont r ar y. I f anyt hi ng,
17 i n her own af f i davi t she seems t o accept t hat t he pr ep
18 sheets were done by Ki mes and t he chef . That ' s at J A
19 430. You - - you woul d expect her t o cont est t he not i on
t hat Mr . Ki mes was t he one who di d the schedul i ng, who
21 di d her annual r evi ews, who di sci pl i ned her on occasi on.
22 Af t er al l , she was cl ai mi ng t hat Davi s was t he
23 super vi sor , and she di dn' t f eel bound by t he Sevent h
24 Ci r cui t t est s.
So you woul d expect t o see some i ndi cat i on
48Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
49/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 of how Ms. Davi s act ual l y assi gned her somethi ng t o do,
2 changed her schedul e, t he l i ke. I nst ead what you f i nd
3 i s al l t hose sor t s of al l egat i ons, she made t hem, but
4 al l t hose sor t s of al l egat i ons wer e di r ect ed t o Mr .
Ki mes. That was t he basi s f or her r et al i at i on cl ai m,
6 whi ch i sn' t bef or e t he Cour t . But t her e ar e al l t he
7 sor t s of t hi ngs t hat you mi ght expect one t o compl ai n
8 about agai nst a super vi sor i n t hi s sor t of vei n: She
9 made me cut vegetabl es i nst ead of doi ng t he baki ng l i ke
I l i ke t o do; she di dn' t assi gn me enough over t i me so I
11 coul d make mor e money; she changed my hour s.
12 Those al l egat i ons wer e made. They wer e di r ect ed
13 at Mr . Ki mes and t hat ' s per f ect l y consi st ent wi t h t he
14 r ecor d evi dence. There was Ki mes and t he chef who had
t he aut hor i t y to do her dai l y act i vi t i es, and Ki mes had
16 t he aut hor i t y t o do t he schedul e.
17 I t ' s not enough f or her t o come her e t oday,
18 I don' t t hi nk, and j ust specul at e t hat havi ng an
19 oppor t uni t y t o go t hr ough gr eat er di scover y, whi ch i n
essence woul d amount t o a f i shi ng expedi t i on, t he Cour t
21 shoul d t ake t he unusual st ep of r emandi ng t o gi ve her an
22 oppor t uni t y f or di scover y. Thi s Cour t - - al t hough we
23 acknowl edge of t ent i mes t hi s Cour t does r emand f or t he
24 l ower cour t s t o under t ake t hat i nqui r y, i t cer t ai nl y
doesn' t al ways do so. So Gl obal - Tech i s one exampl e;
49Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
50/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 we' ve ci t ed many more i n our br i ef s.
2 And her e, I t hi nk, agai n, the par t i es - -
3 t her e i s broad agr eement on what t he st andar d shoul d be.
4 Somet hi ng l i ke t he EEOC or Second Ci r cui t t est i s, we
t hi nk, t he best way t o f r ame i t . But gi ven t he debate
6 among t he par t i es about what t hat t est means and how i t
7 appl i es t o Davi s her e, I t hi nk i t ' s absol ut el y cri t i cal
8 f or t he Cour t t o appl y t he l egal t est t o t he r ecor d
9 f act s and hol d t hat Ms. Davi s i s not a super vi sor and t o
af f i r m t he j udgment bel ow.
11 Al t hough i t ' s not bef or e t hi s Cour t , i f one
12 want s t o go t o t he next st ep and t hi nk about t he
13 af f i r mat i ve def enses and t he l i ke, t hi s i sn' t a case
14 wher e t he Cour t woul d be put t i ng t o r est a val i d Ti t l e
VI I cl ai m.
16 But t he cl ai m was ext ensi vel y l ooked at
17 bel ow by J udge Bar ker i n t he di st r i ct cour t , J udge Wood
18 and her col l eagues on t he cour t of appeal , and t hey
19 f ound an envi r onment i n whi ch Bal l St ate r eacted
r esponsi bl y t o the al l egat i ons t hat wer e made,
21 i nvest i gated t hem and t ook pr ompt act i on wher e t he
22 i nvest i gat i on war r ant ed i t , par t i cul ar l y wi t h r espect t o
23 t he most despi cabl e t hi ngs t hat wer e uncover ed, r aci al
24 epi t het s t hat were used by anot her empl oyee,
Ms. McVi cker , not Ms. Davi s.
50Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
51/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 The onl y al l egat i ons agai nst Ms. Davi s t hat
2 we t hi nk are r el evant her e dur i ng t he t i me per i od t hat
3 Ms. Davi s was a par t - t i me empl oyee were: One, t he
4 so- cal l ed el evat or i nci dent wher e Ms. Davi s al l egedl y
bl ocked Ms. Vance as she got out of t he el evat or , whi ch
6 i sn' t r ace- based at al l , we don' t t hi nk; and t wo, t he
7 al l eged use of words l i ke "Sambo" or
8 "Buckwheat " t o r ef er - -
9 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Mr . Or t i z sai d i t wasn' t
j ust par t - t i me. He cal l ed my at t ent i on t o t he page
11 bef or e t hat says she al so - - t hat Davi s al so di r ect ed - -
12 MR. GARRE: Wel l , we di sagr ee wi t h t hat ,
13 Your Honor . I f you l ook on page J A 12, t he j ob
14 descr i pt i on posi t i on f unct i on, t he l ast sent ence says,
"Requi r es l eader shi p of up t o 20 par t - t i me subst i t ut e
16 and st udent empl oyees. " So we t hi nk i t ' s cl ear .
17 We sai d - - t hi s i s i n our r ed br i ef and
18 t her e wasn' t any r esponse t o i t i n t he yel l ow br i ef - -
19 t hat any aut hor i t y, any concei vabl e super vi sory
aut hor i t y, coul d have onl y exi st ed when Ms. Vance was a
21 par t - t i me empl oyee.
22 But we don' t t hi nk t hat t hat ' s r el evant ,
23 Your Honor , because put t i ng - - put t i ng asi de whet her she
24 had aut hor i t y over cat er i ng assi st ant s who wer e part
t i me or f ul l t i me, t he r ecor d i s absol ut el y cl ear t hat
51Alderson Reporting Company
7/30/2019 333333033303330033311-556
52/71
5
10
15
20
25
Official
1 Ms. Davi s j ust l acked t he aut hor i t y t hat woul d have been
2 suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger vi car i ous l i abi l i t y. And agai n we
3 t hi nk t he par adi gm case wher e t hat aut hor i t y i s pr esent
4 i s somet hi ng l i ke t he l i f eguar d i n Si l ver man wher e t hey
cont r ol al l aspect s of t he dai l y act i vi t i es, one' s
6 schedul e, one' s dai l y work assi gnment s, and down t he
7 l i ne.
8 Her e t her e i s no evi dence t hat any of t hat
9 aut hor i t y t hat was possessed, and t he r ecord makes cl ear
beyond doubt t hat al l t hat aut hor i t y was possessed by
11 ot her s, Ms. - - t he chef and Mr . Ki mes.
12 And I t hi nk, as t he ami cus br i ef makes
13 cl ear , t hi s i s consi st ent wi t h wor kpl aces acr oss Amer i ca
14 t oday, wher e j obs ar e l ess hi er ar chi cal , mor e
col l aborat i ve, and so where you have got more seni or
16 empl oyees by v
