. Ball State University Summary of the Issues in the case The court case of Maetta Vance (Petitioner) v. Ball State University is concerned about who counted and who did not count as a supervisor under Title VII. Alleging claims such as hostile work environment and retaliation, Ms. Vance, who is represented in court by Mr. Ortiz, is suing her employer for the violation of Title VII. Ms. Vance alleges that Ms. Davis of Ball State University had supervisory authority that triggered vicarious liability. Both parties were on agreement to the general legal standard that the harassers who have been conferred authority by their employers over their victims count as supervisors. They also agreed that the authority materially augments the harassment to the victims (Alderson Reporting Company (ARC), 2012). The term ‘augment’ has been used to mean that, the harassment is sufficient to instill the sense of fear in the victim, so that the harassed individual does not turn in the harasser. Moreover, it is also sufficient to the extent that the harasser has the ability to control the victim’s physical location and therefore, it can augment harassment.