Discrimination Cases

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner v. Naiel NASSAR. No. 12-484. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 24, 2013. Decided June 24, 2013. Daryl L. Joseffer, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Brian P. Lauten, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Melissa Arbus Sherry, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the respondent. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Daniel T. Hodge, First Assistant Attorney General, David C. Mattax, Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation James "Beau" Eccles, Division Chief-General Litigation, Office of the Attorney General, Daryl L. Joseffer, Counsel of Record, Carolyn M. Sweeney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, Michael W. Johnston, Merritt E. McAlister, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Lars Hagen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Myrna Salinas Baumann, King & Spalding LLP, Austin, TX, for Petitioner. Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Charla Aldous, Brent Walker, Aldous Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Brian P. Lauten, Counsel of Record, Sawicki & Lauten, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. When the law grants persons the right to compensation for injury from wrongful conduct, there must be some demonstrated connection, some link, between the injury sustained and the wrong alleged. The requisite relation between prohibited conduct and compensable injury is governed by the principles of causation, a subject most often arising in elaborating the law of torts. This case requires the Court to define those rules in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides remedies to employees for injuries related to discriminatory conduct and associated wrongs by employers. Title VII is central to the federal policy of prohibiting wrongful discrimination in the Nation's workplaces and in all sectors of economic endeavor. This opinion discusses the causation rules for two categories of wrongful employer conduct prohibited by Title VII. The first type is called, for purposes of this opinion, status-based discrimination. The term is used here to refer to basic workplace protection such as prohibitions against employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in hiring, firing, salary structure, promotion and the like. See § 2000e-2(a). The second type of conduct is employer retaliation on account of an employee's having opposed, complained of, or sought remedies for, unlawful workplace discrimination. See § 2000e-3(a). An employee who alleges status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show that the causal link between injury and wrong is so close that the injury would not have occurred but for the act. So-called but-for causation is not the test. It suffices instead to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer's motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer's decision. This principle is the result of an earlier case from this Court, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), and an ensuing statutory amendment by Congress that codified in part and abrogated in part the holding in Price Waterhouse, see §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). The question the Court must answer here is whether that lessened causation standard is applicable to claims of unlawful employer retaliation under § 2000e-3(a). Although the Court has not addressed the question of the causation showing required to establish liability for a Title VII retaliation claim, it has addressed the issue of causation in general in a case involving employer discrimination under a separate but related statute, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In Gross, the Court concluded that the ADEA requires proof that the prohibited criterion was the but-for cause of the prohibited conduct. The holding and analysis of that decision are instructive here. I Petitioner, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (University), is an academic institution within the University of Texas system. The University specializes in medical education for aspiring physicians, health professionals, and scientists. Over the years, the University has affiliated itself with a number of healthcare facilities including, as relevant in this case, Parkland Memorial Hospital (Hospital). As provided in its affiliation agreement with the University, the Hospital permits the University's students to gain clinical experience working in its facilities. The agreement also requires the Hospital to offer empty staff physician posts to the University's faculty members, see App. 361-362, 366, and, accordingly, most of the staff physician positions at the Hospital are filled by those faculty members. Respondent is a medical doctor of Middle Eastern descent who specializes in internal medicine and infectious diseases. In 1995, he was hired to work both as a member of the University's faculty and a staff physician at the Hospital. He left both positions in 1998 for additional medical education and then returned in 2001 as an assistant professor at the University and, once again, as a physician at the Hospital. In 2004, Dr. Beth Levine was hired as the University's Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine. In that position Levine became respondent's ultimate (though not direct) superior. Respondent alleged that Levine was biased against him on account of his religion and ethnic heritage, a bias manifested by undeserved scrutiny of his billing practices and productivity, as well as comments that " 'Middle Easterners are lazy.' " 674 F.3d 448, 450 (C.A.5 2012). On different occasions during his employment, respondent met with Dr. Gregory Fitz, the University's Chair of Internal Medicine and Levine's supervisor, to complain about Levine's alleged harassment. Despite obtaining a promotion with Levine's assistance in 2006, respondent continued to believe that she was biased against him. So he tried to arrange to continue working at the Hospital without also being on the University's faculty. After preliminary negotiations with the Hospital suggested this might be possible, respondent resigned his teaching post in July 2006 and sent a letter to Dr. Fitz (among others), in which he stated that the reason for his departure was harassment by Levine. That harassment, he asserted, " 'stems from ... religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims.' " Id., at 451. After reading that letter, Dr. Fitz expressed consternation at respondent's accusations, saying that Levine had been "publicly humiliated by th[e] letter" and that it was "very important that she be publicly exonerated." App. 41. Meanwhile, the Hospital had offered respondent a job as a staff physician, as it had indicated it would. On learning of that offer, Dr. Fitz protested to the Hospital, asserting that the offer was inconsistent with the affiliation agreement's requirement that all staff physicians also be members of the University faculty. The Hospital then withdrew its offer. After exhausting his administrative remedies, respondent filed this Title VII suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He alleged two discrete violations of Title VII. The first was a status-based discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a). Respondent alleged that Dr. Levine's racially and religiously motivated harassment had resulted in his constructive discharge from the University. Respondent's second claim was that Dr. Fitz's efforts to prevent the Hospital from hiring him were in retaliation for complaining about Dr. Levine's harassment, in violation of § 2000e-3(a). 674 F.3d, at 452. The jury found for respondent on both claims. It awarded him over $400,000 in backpay and more than $3 million in compensatory damages. The District Court later reduced the compensatory damages award to $300,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court first concluded that respondent had submitted insufficient evidence in support of his constructive-discharge claim, so it vacated that portion of the jury's verdict. The court affirmed as to the retaliation finding, however, on the theory that retaliation claims brought under § 2000e-3(a) -like claims of status-based discrimination under § 2000e-2(a) -require only a showing that retaliation was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action, rather than its but-for cause. See id., at 454, n. 16 (citing Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320, 330 (C.A.5 2010) ). It further held that the evidence supported a finding that Dr. Fitz was motivated, at least in part, to retaliate against respondent for his complaints against Levine. The Court of Appeals then remanded for a redetermination of damages in light of its decision to vacate the constructive-discharge verdict. Four judges dissented from the court's decision not to rehear the case en banc, arguing that the Circuit's application of the motivating-factor standard to retaliation cases was "an erroneous interpretation of [Title VII] and controlling caselaw" and should be overruled en banc. 688 F.3d 211, 213-214 (C.A.5 2012) (Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Certiorari was granted. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 978, 184 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013). II A This case requires the Court to define the proper standard of causation for Title VII retaliation claims. Causation in fact-i.e., proof that the defendant's conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff's injury-is a standard requirement of any tort claim, see Restatement of Torts § 9 (1934) (definition of "legal cause"); § 431, Comment a (same); § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of physical harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); § 281(c) (negligence). This includes federal statutory claims of workplace discrimination. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (In intentional-discrimination cases, "liability depends on whether the protected trait" "actually motivated the employer's decision" and "had a determinative influence on the outcome"); Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (explaining that the "simple test" for determining a discriminatory employment practice is "whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the usual course, this standard requires the plaintiff to show "that the harm would not have occurred" in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct. Restatement of Torts § 431, Comment a (negligence); § 432(1), and Comment a (same); see § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of bodily harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 27, and Comment b (2010) (noting the existence of an exception for cases where an injured party can prove the existence of multiple, independently sufficient factual causes, but observing that "cases invoking the concept are rare"). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432(1) (1963 and 1964) (negligence claims); § 870, Comment l (intentional injury to another); cf. § 435a, and Comment a (legal cause for intentional harm). It is thus textbook tort law that an action "is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred without it." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984). This, then, is the background against which Congress legislated in enacting Title VII, and these are the default rules it is presumed to have incorporated, absent an indication to the contrary in the statute itself. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003) ; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-258, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). B Since the statute's passage in 1964, it has prohibited employers from discriminating against their employees on any of seven specified criteria. Five of them-race, color, religion, sex, and national origin-are personal characteristics and are set forth in § 2000e-2. (As noted at the outset, discrimination based on these five characteristics is called status-based discrimination in this opinion.) And then there is a point of great import for this case: The two remaining categories of wrongful employer conduct-the employee's opposition to employment discrimination, and the employee's submission of or support for a complaint that alleges employment discrimination-are not wrongs based on personal traits but rather types of protected employee conduct. These latter two categories are covered by a separate, subsequent section of Title VII, § 2000e-3(a). Under the status-based discrimination provision, it is an "unlawful employment practice" for an employer "to discriminate against any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." § 2000e-2(a). In its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse, the Court sought to explain the causation standard imposed by this language. It addressed in particular what it means for an action to be taken "because of" an individual's race, religion, or nationality. Although no opinion in that case commanded a majority, six Justices did agree that a plaintiff could prevail on a claim of status-based discrimination if he or she could show that one of the prohibited traits was a "motivating" or "substantial" factor in the employer's decision. 490 U.S., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 276, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). If the plaintiff made that showing, the burden of persuasion would shift to the employer, which could escape liability if it could prove that it would have taken the same employment action in the absence of all discriminatory animus. Id., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259-260, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 276-277, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). In other words, the employer had to show that a discriminatory motive was not the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. Two years later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071. This statute (which had many other provisions) codified the burden-shifting and lessened-causation framework of Price Waterhouse in part but also rejected it to a substantial degree. The legislation first added a new subsection to the end of § 2000e-2, i.e., Title VII's principal ban on status-based discrimination. See § 107(a), 105 Stat. 1075. The new provision, § 2000e-2(m), states: "[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." This, of course, is a lessened causation standard. The 1991 Act also abrogated a portion of Price Waterhouse 's framework by removing the employer's ability to defeat liability once a plaintiff proved the existence of an impermissible motivating factor. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In its place, Congress enacted § 2000e-5(g)(2), which provides: "(B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and [the employer] demonstrates that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court- "(i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief ... and [limited] attorney's fees and costs ...; and "(ii) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment...." So, in short, the 1991 Act substituted a new burden-shifting framework for the one endorsed by Price Waterhouse . Under that new regime, a plaintiff could obtain declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and some forms of injunctive relief based solely on proof that race, color, religion, sex, or nationality was a motivating factor in the employment action; but the employer's proof that it would still have taken the same employment action would save it from monetary damages and a reinstatement order. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343; see also id., at 175, n. 2, 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343. After Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, considerable time elapsed before the Court returned again to the meaning of "because" and the problem of causation. This time it arose in the context of a different, yet similar statute, the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). See Gross, supra . Much like the Title VII statute in Price Waterhouse, the relevant portion of the ADEA provided that " '[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.' " 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting § 623(a)(1) ; emphasis and ellipsis in original). Concentrating first and foremost on the meaning of the phrase " 'because of ... age,' " the Court in Gross explained that the ordinary meaning of " 'because of' " is " 'by reason of' " or " 'on account of.' " Id., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1966); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 746 (1933); The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 132 (1966); emphasis in original). Thus, the "requirement that an employer took adverse action 'because of' age [meant] that age was the 'reason' that the employer decided to act," or, in other words, that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343. See also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 63-64, and n. 14, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (noting that "because of" means "based on" and that " 'based on' indicates a but-for causal relationship"); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 265-266, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) (equating "by reason of" with " 'but for' cause"). In the course of approving this construction, Gross declined to adopt the interpretation endorsed by the plurality and concurring opinions in Price Waterhouse . Noting that "the ADEA must be 'read ... the way Congress wrote it,' " 557 U.S., at 179, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 102, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008) ), the Court concluded that "the textual differences between Title VII and the ADEA" "prevent[ed] us from applying Price Waterhouse ... to federal age discrimination claims," 557 U.S., at 175, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In particular, the Court stressed the congressional choice not to add a provision like § 2000e-2(m) to the ADEA despite making numerous other changes to the latter statute in the 1991 Act. Id., at 174-175, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) ); 557 U.S., at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 270, 129 S.Ct. 1456, 173 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) ). Finally, the Court in Gross held that it would not be proper to read Price Waterhouse as announcing a rule that applied to both statutes, despite their similar wording and near-contemporaneous enactment. 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. This different reading was necessary, the Court concluded, because Congress' 1991 amendments to Title VII

Maetta VANCE, Petitioner v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY. No. 11-556. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 26, 2012. Decided June 24, 2013. Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, VA, for Petitioner. Sri Srinivasan, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting neither party. Gregory G. Garre, Washington, DC, for Respondents. David T. Goldberg, Donahue & Goldberg, LLP, New York, NY, Daniel R. Ortiz, Counsel of Record, University of Virginia School of Law, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA, for Petitioner. Scott E. Shockley, Lester H. Cohen, Shawn A. Neal, Defur Voran LLP, Muncie, IN, Gregory G. Garre, Counsel of Record, Jessica E. Phillips, Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we decide a question left open in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998), and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998), namely, who qualifies as a "supervisor" in a case in which an employee asserts a Title VII claim for workplace harassment? Under Title VII, an employer's liability for such harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. In cases in which the harasser is a "supervisor," however, different rules apply. If the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, the employer is strictly liable. But if no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may escape liability by establishing, as an affirmative defense, that (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided. Id., at 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275; Ellerth, supra, at 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257. Under this framework, therefore, it matters whether a harasser is a "supervisor" or simply a co-worker. We hold that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. I Maetta Vance, an African-American woman, began working for Ball State University (BSU) in 1989 as a substitute server in the University Banquet and Catering division of Dining Services. In 1991, BSU promoted Vance to a part-time catering assistant position, and in 2007 she applied and was selected for a position as a full-time catering assistant. Over the course of her employment with BSU, Vance lodged numerous complaints of racial discrimination and retaliation, but most of those incidents are not at issue here. For present purposes, the only relevant incidents concern Vance's interactions with a fellow BSU employee, Saundra Davis. During the time in question, Davis, a white woman, was employed as a catering specialist in the Banquet and Catering division. The parties vigorously dispute the precise nature and scope of Davis' duties, but they agree that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance. See No. 1:06-cv-1452-SEB-JMS, 2008 WL 4247836, at *12 (S.D.Ind., Sept. 10, 2008) ("Vance makes no allegations that Ms. Davis possessed any such power"); Brief for Petitioner 9-11 (describing Davis' authority over Vance); Brief for Respondent 39 ("[A]ll agree that Davis lacked the authority to take tangible employments [sic ] actions against petitioner"). In late 2005 and early 2006, Vance filed internal complaints with BSU and charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging racial harassment and discrimination, and many of these complaints and charges pertained to Davis. 646 F.3d 461, 467 (C.A.7 2011). Vance complained that Davis "gave her a hard time at work by glaring at her, slamming pots and pans around her, and intimidating her." Ibid. She alleged that she was "left alone in the kitchen with Davis, who smiled at her"; that Davis "blocked" her on an elevator and "stood there with her cart smiling"; and that Davis often gave her "weird" looks. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Vance's workplace strife persisted despite BSU's attempts to address the problem. As a result, Vance filed this lawsuit in 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claiming, among other things, that she had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. In her complaint, she alleged that Davis was her supervisor and that BSU was liable for Davis' creation of a racially hostile work environment. Complaint in No. 1:06-cv-01452-SEB-TAB (SD Ind., Oct. 3, 2006), Dkt. No. 1, pp. 5-6. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of BSU. 2008 WL 4247836, at *1. The court explained that BSU could not be held vicariously liable for Davis' alleged racial harassment because Davis could not " 'hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline' " Vance and, as a result, was not Vance's supervisor under the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of that concept. See id., at *12 (quoting Hall v. Bodine Elect. Co., 276 F.3d 345, 355 (C.A.7 2002) ). The court further held that BSU could not be liable in negligence because it responded reasonably to the incidents of which it was aware. 2008 WL 4247836, *15. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. 646 F.3d 461. It explained that, under its settled precedent, supervisor status requires " 'the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee.' " Id., at 470 (quoting Hall,supra, at 355 ). The court concluded that Davis was not Vance's supervisor and thus that Vance could not recover from BSU unless she could prove negligence. Finding that BSU was not negligent with respect to Davis' conduct, the court affirmed. 646 F.3d, at 470-473. II A Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). This provision obviously prohibits discrimination with respect to employment decisions that have direct economic consequences, such as termination, demotion, and pay cuts. But not long after Title VII was enacted, the lower courts held that Title VII also reaches the creation or perpetuation of a discriminatory work environment. In the leading case of Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234 (1971), the Fifth Circuit recognized a cause of action based on this theory. See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (describing development of hostile environment claims based on race). The Rogers court reasoned that "the phrase 'terms, conditions, or privileges of employment' in [Title VII] is an expansive concept which sweeps within its protective ambit the practice of creating a working environment heavily charged with ethnic or racial discrimination." 454 F.2d, at 238. The court observed that "[o]ne can readily envision working environments so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers." Ibid. Following this decision, the lower courts generally held that an employer was liable for a racially hostile work environment if the employer was negligent, i.e., if the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment but failed to take remedial action. See Ellerth, 524 U.S., at 768-769, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (citing cases). When the issue eventually reached this Court, we agreed that Title VII prohibits the creation of a hostile work environment. See Meritor, supra, at 64-67, 106 S.Ct. 2399. In such cases, we have held, the plaintiff must show that the work environment was so pervaded by discrimination that the terms and conditions of employment were altered. See, e.g., Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). B Consistent with Rogers, we have held that an employer is directly liable for an employee's unlawful harassment if the employer was negligent with respect to the offensive behavior. Faragher, 524 U.S., at 789, 118 S.Ct. 2275. Courts have generally applied this rule to evaluate employer liability when a co-worker harasses the plaintiff. In Ellerth and Faragher, however, we held that different rules apply where the harassing employee is the plaintiff's "supervisor." In those instances, an employer may be vicariously liable for its employees' creation of a hostile work environment. And in identifying the situations in which such vicarious liability is appropriate, we looked to the Restatement of Agency for guidance. See, e.g., Meritor, supra, at 72, 106 S.Ct. 2399; Ellerth, supra, at 755, 118 S.Ct. 2257. Under the Restatement, "masters" are generally not liable for the torts of their "servants" when the torts are committed outside the scope of the servants' employment. See 1 Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(2), p. 481 (1957) (Restatement). And because racial and sexual harassment are unlikely to fall within the scope of a servant's duties, application of this rule would generally preclude employer liability for employee harassment. See Faragher, supra, at 793-796, 118 S.Ct. 2275; Ellerth, supra, at 757, 118 S.Ct. 2257. But in Ellerth and Faragher, we held that a provision of the Restatement provided the basis for an exception. Section 219(2)(d) of that Restatement recognizes an exception to the general rule just noted for situations in which the servant was "aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation." Restatement 481; see Faragher,supra, at 802-803, 118 S.Ct. 2275; Ellerth, supra, at 760-763, 118 S.Ct. 2257. Adapting this concept to the Title VII context, Ellerth and Faragher identified two situations in which the aided-in-the-accomplishment rule warrants employer liability even in the absence of negligence, and both of these situations involve harassment by a "supervisor" as opposed to a co-worker. First, the Court held that an employer is vicariously liable "when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action," Ellerth, supra, at 762, 118 S.Ct. 2257; Faragher, supra, at 790, 118 S.Ct. 2275 -i.e., "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." Ellerth, 524 U.S., at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257. We explained the reason for this rule as follows: "When a supervisor makes a tangible employment decision, there is assurance the injury could not have been inflicted absent the agency relation.... A tangible employment decision requires an official act of the enterprise, a company act. The decision in most cases is documented in official company records, and may be subject to review by higher level supervisors." Id., at 761-762, 118 S.Ct. 2257. In those circumstances, we said, it is appropriate to hold the employer strictly liable. See Faragher, supra, at 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275; Ellerth,supra, at 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257. Second, Ellerth and Faragher held that, even when a supervisor's harassment does not culminate in a tangible employment action, the employer can be vicariously liable for the supervisor's creation of a hostile work environment if the employer is unable to establish an affirmative defense. We began by noting that "a supervisor's power and authority invests his or her harassing conduct with a particular threatening character, and in this sense, a supervisor always is aided by the agency relation." Ellerth, supra, at 763, 118 S.Ct. 2257; see Faragher, 524 U.S., at 803-805, 118 S.Ct. 2275. But it would go too far, we found, to make employers strictly liable whenever a "supervisor" engages in harassment that does not result in a tangible employment action, and we therefore held that in such cases the employer may raise an affirmative defense. Specifically, an employer can mitigate or avoid liability by showing (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior and (2) that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities that were provided. Faragher, supra, at 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275; Ellerth, 524 U.S., at 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257. This compromise, we explained, "accommodate[s] the agency principles of vicarious liability for harm caused by misuse of supervisory authority, as well as Title VII's equally basic policies of encouraging forethought by employers and saving action by objecting employees." Id., at 764, 118 S.Ct. 2257. The dissenting Members of the Court in Ellerth and Faragher would not have created a special rule for cases involving harassment by "supervisors." Instead, they would have held that an employer is liable for any employee's creation of a hostile work environment "if, and only if, the plaintiff proves that the employer was negligent in permitting the [offending] conduct to occur." Ellerth,supra, at 767, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Faragher, supra, at 810, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (same). C Under Ellerth and Faragher, it is obviously important whether an alleged harasser is a "supervisor" or merely a co-worker, and the lower courts have disagreed about the meaning of the concept of a supervisor in this context. Some courts, including the Seventh Circuit below, have held that an employee is not a supervisor unless he or she has the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline the victim. E.g., 646 F.3d, at 470 ; Noviello v. Boston, 398 F.3d 76, 96 (C.A.1 2005) ; Weyers v. Lear Operations Corp., 359 F.3d 1049, 1057 (C.A.8 2004). Other courts have substantially followed the more open-ended approach advocated by the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance, which ties supervisor status to the ability to exercise significant direction over another's daily work. See, e.g., Mack v. Otis Elevator Co., 326 F.3d 116, 126-127 (C.A.2 2003) ; Whitten v. Fred's, Inc., 601 F.3d 231, 245-247 (C.A.4 2010) ; EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), 1999 WL 33305874, at *3 (hereinafter EEOC Guidance). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 567 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 23, 183 L.Ed.2d 673 (2012). III We hold that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e., to effect 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." Ellerth, supra, at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257. We reject the nebulous definition of a "supervisor" advocated in the EEOC Guidance and substantially adopted by several courts of appeals. Petitioner's reliance on colloquial uses of the term " supervisor" is misplaced, and her contention that our cases require the EEOC's abstract definition is simply wrong. As we will explain, the framework set out in Ellerth and Faragher presupposes a clear distinction between supervisors and co-workers. Those decisions contemplate a unitary category of supervisors, i.e., those employees with the authority to make tangible employment decisions. There is no hint in either decision that the Court had in mind two categories of supervisors: first, those who have such authority and, second, those who, although lacking this power, nevertheless have the ability to direct a co-worker's labor to some ill-defined degree. On the contrary, the Ellerth / Faragher framework is one under which supervisory status can usually be readily determined, generally by written documentation. The approach recommended by the EEOC Guidance, by contrast, would make the determination of supervisor status depend on a highly case-specific evaluation of numerous factors. The Ellerth / Faragher framework represents what the Court saw as a workable compromise between the aided-in-the-accomplishment theory of vicarious liability and the legitimate interests of employers. The Seventh Circuit's understanding of the concept of a "supervisor," with which we agree, is easily workable; it can be applied without undue difficulty at both the summary judgment stage and at trial. The alternative, in many cases, would frustrate judges and confound jurors. A Petitioner contends that her expansive understanding of the concept of a "supervisor" is supported by the meaning of the word in general usage and in other legal contexts, see Brief for Petitioner 25-28, but this argument is both incorrect on its own terms and, in any event, misguided. In general usage, the term "supervisor" lacks a sufficiently specific meaning to be helpful for present purposes. Petitioner is certainly right that the term is often used to refer to a person who has the authority to direct another's work. See, e.g., 17 Oxford English Dictionary 245 (2d ed. 1989) (defining the term as applying to "one who inspects and directs the work of others"). But the term is also often closely tied to the authority to take what Ellerth and Faragher referred to as a "tangible employment action." See, e.g ., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2296, def. 1(a) (1976) ("a person having authority delegated by an employer to hire, transfer, suspend, recall, promote, assign, or discharge another employee or to recommend such action"). A comparison of the definitions provided by two colloquial business authorities illustrates the term's imprecision in general usage. One says that "[s]upervisors are usually authorized to recommend and/or effect hiring, disciplining, promoting, punishing, rewarding, and other associated activities regarding the employees in their departments." Another says exactly the opposite: "A supervisor generally does not have the power to hire or fire employees or to promote them." Compare Ellerth, 524 U.S., at 762, 118 S.Ct. 2257 ("Tangible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor"). If we look beyond general usage to the meaning of the term in other legal contexts, we find much the same situation. Sometimes the term is reserved for those in the upper echelons of the management hierarchy. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 2021(18) (defining the "supervisor" of a school within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs as "the individual in the position of ultimate authority at a Bureau school"). But sometimes the term is used to refer to lower ranking individuals. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) (defining a supervisor to include "any individual having authority ... to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment"); 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(j)(4)(A) (providing that an eligible Medicaid beneficiary who receives care through an approved self-directed services plan may "hire, fire, supervise, and manage the individuals providing such services"). Although the meaning of the concept of a supervisor varies from one legal context to another, the law often contemplates that the ability to supervise includes the ability to take tangible employment actions. See, e.g., 5 CFR §§ 9701.511(a)(2), (3) (2012) (referring to a supervisor's author