Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an employer’s procedures for reporting complaints of harassment must cater to the specific demographic of the company’s workforce.  The Court also held that where the complainant is a minor, his or her parent may act as the minor’s agent and any actions taken in response to the parent’s intervention will constitute retaliation under Title VII.

The plaintiff in this case, EEOC v. V & J Foods, Inc., was a 16 year-old female high school student who worked at a Burger King franchise.  She alleged that the general manager constantly made suggestive comments to her, rubbed against her and tried to kiss her, and offered her money in exchange for sex.  The plaintiff refused his advances, and the general manager eventually fired the plaintiff, though he later rehired her and continued the alleged harassment.  The plaintiff complained multiple times to shift supervisors and the assistant manager.  When she requested a number to complain to someone outside the restaurant, the assistant manager initially resisted the plaintiff’s requests and then provided the plaintiff with a wrong number.  The plaintiff alleged that the general manager permanently fired her after her mother intervened on her behalf and complained to a shift supervisor.

Normally, an employer may use the existence of an effective complaint-filing mechanism as an affirmative defense in harassment cases; the employer can avoid liability where the employee failed to utilize the internal complaint filing procedures.  In this case, employees received a handbook instructing them to lodge complaints of harassment with their “district manager,” but they were not informed who the district manager is or how to contact that person.

At trial, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of harassment and retaliation, finding that the plaintiff failed to use the company’s complaint filing procedures, and that she failed to prove that she was fired in retaliation for opposing an unlawful practice.  The Court of Appeals reversed on both grounds, holding first that the affirmative defense only applies where “the mechanism is reasonable and what is reasonable depends on ‘the employment circumstances.’”  Although the Burger King franchise was not required to cater to the competence level of individual employees, the fact that the majority of the franchise’s employees were teenagers holding their first paying jobs led the Court to hold the employer to a different standard.  The franchise’s complaint reporting procedures were even confusing to adults, and moreover, the “company was obligated to suit its proceedings to the understanding of the average teenager.”

In reversing the district court’s decision on the retaliation claim, the Seventh Circuit first noted that a victim of harassment does not have a remedy where a third-party bystander opposes the unlawful harassment on behalf of the victim, and the employee-victim is subsequently fired or retaliated against.  The Court then clarified that the employee-victim does have a right to sue where the third-party acts as the employee’s agent, and the employee is subsequently fired as a result of her agent’s intervention.  Such is the case where the employee is represented by a lawyer, or like here, where the employee is a minor and the third-party is the employee’s parent or guardian.