Vance v. Ball State University, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11195

Background

Maetta Vance, the only African-American employee in her Ball State University department, faced racially charged harassment beginning in 2005, including epithets, KKK references, and veiled threats.
Vance reported incidents to supervisors and Ball State Compliance; McVicker used racially offensive language and boasted KKK ties, while Davis slapped Vance in 2001 and later taunted her in 2005 and 2007.
Ball State conducted investigations, issued a written warning to McVicker in 2005, and counseled both McVicker and Vance on civility; Davis was verbally warned after 2007 complaints.
Vance filed EEOC charges in 2006 and 2006-2007 and ultimately sued in 2006 alleging Title VII hostile environment and retaliation claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for Ball State; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, analyzing supervisor vs. coworker harassment and Ball State’s remedial actions.
Vance was promoted in 2007 to a full-time catering position but alleged she received diminished duties and fewer overtime opportunities, forming the basis of her retaliation claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisor liability applies for Davis and if Davis could be treated as a supervisor	Vance contends Davis was a supervisor with power to affect employment terms.	Court should treat Davis as a coworker, not a supervisor, for Title VII liability.	Davis not a supervisor; evaluated as coworker for liability.
Whether Adkins and Kimes actions created a racially hostile environment and Ball State’s liability	Vance asserts Adkins and Kimes engaged in racially hostile conduct toward her.	Adkins and Kimes lacked racially purposeful conduct; no supervisor liability given evidence.	No basis for employer liability for supervisor harassment; actions insufficiently racially motivated.
Whether Davis and McVicker coworker conduct supports a hostile environment and Ball State’s liability	Vance claims ongoing harassment by coworkers created a hostile environment.	Employer responded promptly with investigations and appropriate discipline; conduct not sufficiently pervasive/severe.	No employer liability; Ball State’s prompt, corrective actions sufficed.
Whether Vance stated a prima facie case of retaliation and if Ball State’s actions were pretextual	Vance alleges promotion coupled with diminished duties and reduced overtime as retaliation.	Changes were not materially adverse or not similarly situated; actions not retaliatory.	No materially adverse action or valid comparator; no retaliation established.

Key Cases Cited

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (hostile environment claims rely on cumulative conduct rather than discrete acts)
Cerros v. Steel Technologies, Inc. (Cerros I), 288 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2002) (requirements for hostile environment claims and employer liability framework)
Cerros v. Steel Technologies, Inc. (Cerros II), 398 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2005) (employer liability depends on prompt corrective action to stop harassment)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (supervisor liability and Faragher/Ellerth defense framework)
Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (employer vicarious liability and affirmative defense for supervisor harassment)
Porter v. Erie Foods Int'l Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2009) (focus on whether employer’s corrective action was prompt and effective)
Washington v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, 420 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2005) (retaliation adverse action analysis and scope of actions constituting adverse action)
Daniels v. Essex Group, Inc., 937 F.2d 1264 (7th Cir. 1991) (racial slurs context and remedial obligations)
Sitar v. Indiana Dep't of Transp., 344 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2003) (elements of retaliation claim under indirect proof)
Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2004) (racially tinged conduct requires racial character or purpose)
de la Rama v. Illinois Dep't of Human Services, 541 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2008) (nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with bare allegations; evidentiary standards)
Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for summary judgment in Title VII cases)