Employee Held to be Supervisor in Harassment Case 06-03-2003
- By Rita Risser

If an individual contributor harasses a co-worker, in many cases an employer will not be held liable. But if a supervisor harasses a subordinate, the company can be held liable, even if the company did not know the harassment was occurring. Thus, whether an employee is a supervisor or not is critical in harassment cases. And, of course, the courts often have a different definition of supervisor than employers.

Two courts recently have adopted an expansive definition of supervisor. In one case, the victim was an employee in IT who was working on a temporary project headed by a "team leader." The team leader was not from her department, had no authority to hire, fire or promote her, did not select her for the project, had no "significant" input into personnel decisions, and did not control her day-to-day working environment.

On the other hand, he did assign her projects and tasks, tell her what to do and how to do it. She was told he would be doing her performance review, although he didn't actually do it. And the team leader frequently told her he was her boss, and could get her thrown off the team.

The court held that, given these facts, the team leader was her supervisor. The court said, "The decision turn[s] on whether the power the offending employee possessed was reasonably perceived by the victim, accurately or not, as giving that employee the power to adversely affect the victim's working life."

Another case involved Otis elevator mechanics who were permanently assigned to a remote location. The lead mechanic at the location assigned and scheduled work, directed the other mechanics, assured the quality and efficiency of their work, and enforced safety practices and procedures.

The court noted, "He was the senior employee on the work site. He therefore possessed a special dominance over other on-site employees arising out of their remoteness from others with authority to exercise power on behalf of Otis. There was no one superior to [the lead mechanic] at [the job site] whose continuing presence might have acted as a check on [his] coercive misbehavior toward other Otis employees there."

The court held that whether the lead mechanic was a supervisor "depends on whether the power - economic or otherwise, of the harassing employee over the subordinate victim given by the employer to the harasser - enabled the harasser, or materially augmented his or her ability, to create or maintain the hostile work environment." In this case, the court said that the lead mechanic did have such power.

What this means to you: Employers often reserve training on harassment prevention to managers and designated supervisors. If there are employees who are "team leaders," "leads" or who have other quasi-supervisory functions, they also should receive training, and be reminded of their responsibilities to enforce your anti-harassment policy.

Entrot v. BASF (New Jersey Ct App 04/07/2003)

Mack v. Otis Elevator (2nd Cir 04/11/2003)

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.