|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-556||7th Cir.||Nov 26, 2012||Jun 24, 2013||5-4||Alito||OT 2012|
Holding: An employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only if he is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 24, 2013. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 10 2011||Application (11A192) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 1, 2011 to October 31, 2011, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Aug 16 2011||Application (11A192) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 31, 2011.|
|Oct 31 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2011)|
|Nov 15 2011||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 3, 2012.|
|Dec 13 2011||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 17, 2012.|
|Jan 17 2012||Brief of respondent Ball State University in opposition filed.|
|Jan 31 2012||Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed.|
|Feb 1 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.|
|Feb 21 2012||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 4 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner Maetta Vance filed.|
|Jun 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 17 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2012.|
|Jul 17 2012||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 19, 2012.|
|Jul 26 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Aug 1 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 29 2012||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 29 2012||Brief of petitioner Maetta Vance filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association and AARP filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Partnership for Women & Families, et al. filed.|
|Sep 14 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 26, 2012.|
|Sep 14 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 26 2012||Record from U.S.C.A. for 7th Circuit is electronic.|
|Sep 26 2012||The record from the U.S.D.C. for the Southern District of Alabama is electronic.|
|Oct 19 2012||Brief of respondents Ball State University, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 25 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Council on Education, et al. filed.|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amici curiae of Society for Human Resource Management, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Retail Federation filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 13 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2012||Reply of petitioner Maetta Vance filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 26 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, Va. For United States, as amicus curiae: Sri Srinivasan, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 24 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 26 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.