Maetta Vance, an African American woman, worked at Ball State University as a catering assistant in the University Banquet and Catering Division of Dining Services. Over the course of her employment with Ball State, she lodged numerous complaints of racial discrimination and retaliation. She had a particularly acrimonious relationship with Saundra Davis, a white woman who was employed as a catering specialist in the Banquet and Catering Division. Vance complained that Davis “gave her a hard time at work by glaring at her, slamming pots and pans around her, and intimidating her.” 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 Vance “weird” looks. Vance filed an EEOC charge and, ultimately, a lawsuit in federal court against Ball State, claiming violations of Title VII for racial harassment. Davis, as a catering specialist, had some leadership responsibilities in the Division. She would give instructions and assign tasks to others, including Vance, in the kitchen. As a result, Davis wielded some significant control over various aspects of Vance’s dayto-day tasks and experiences as an employee of Ball State. Davis did not, however, have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline Vance. If Vance were to prove that the environment in which she worked was racially hostile, would Ball State face the possibility of vicarious liability?