Louvenia Hall v. Bodine Electric Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that fact that harasser had marginal discretion to direct victim’s work operation was not sufficient to impute Title VII vicarious liability to the employer
• holding that a harasser who “(1) possessed the authority to direct [the plaintiff’s] work operations …; (2) provided input into her performance evaluations, and (3
• holding that employee was not the plaintiff’s supervisor despite the fact that he “(1) possessed the authority to direct her work operations (i.e., which machines she ran); (2) provided input into her performance evaluations, and (3
• finding that harasser was not a “supervisor” despite authority to direct plaintiffs work operations, provide input on evaluations, and train new employees
• “Requiring plaintiffs to identify a limitations period violation is necessary to enable courts to distinguish an ongoing pattern of discrimination from non-actionable situations involving the persisting effects of past discrimination.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he fact that an employer authorized one employee to oversee aspects of another employee’s job performance does not establish a Title VII supervisory relationship.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).