Lexplug logoLexplug

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. v & J Foods, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,006, 507 F.3d 575, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25856 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer's anti-harassment complaint procedure is unreasonable as a matter of law if it is not suited to the capabilities of its workforce (such as teenagers) or fails to provide an avenue to bypass a harassing supervisor. Retaliating against a minor employee because her parent complained of harassment on her behalf constitutes unlawful retaliation against the employee under Title VII.


Facts:

  • V & J Foods, a Burger King franchisee, hired 16-year-old Samekiea Merriweather for her first job.
  • The restaurant's 35-year-old general manager, Tony Wilkins, began sexually harassing Merriweather with suggestive comments, unwanted touching, and offers of money for sex.
  • Merriweather rejected Wilkins's advances, after which he became hostile towards her.
  • Wilkins fired Merriweather, claiming she missed a shift, but later rehired her and the harassment continued.
  • Merriweather repeatedly complained about the harassment to shift supervisors and an assistant manager, but no action was taken.
  • When Merriweather asked the assistant manager for a phone number to report harassment, he claimed not to know one and eventually provided her with a wrong number.
  • Merriweather's mother went to the restaurant and complained to a shift supervisor about Wilkins's sexual harassment of her daughter.
  • Upon learning of the mother's complaint, Wilkins fired Merriweather for involving her mother in the matter.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against V & J Foods, Inc. in the federal district court.
  • The lawsuit alleged violations of Title VII, specifically hostile work environment sex discrimination and unlawful retaliation.
  • V & J Foods, the defendant, moved for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of V & J Foods, dismissing the EEOC's case.
  • The EEOC, as the plaintiff, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer's anti-harassment policy provide a valid affirmative defense under Title VII if it is confusing to its teenage workforce and requires an employee to report harassment to the harassing supervisor? Secondly, does firing a minor employee because her mother complained to the employer about sexual harassment constitute unlawful retaliation against the employee under Title VII?


Opinions:

Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge

No to the first question and Yes to the second. An employer's affirmative defense fails because its complaint procedure was unreasonable. An employer that hires a vulnerable class of employees, like teenagers, is obligated to tailor its procedures to their level of understanding. V & J's policy was confusing, failed to identify the 'district manager' to whom complaints should be made, and funneled complaints through the general manager, who in this case was the harasser. A policy that provides no clear assurance that a harassing supervisor can be bypassed is unreasonable as a matter of law. Regarding retaliation, a parent complaining on behalf of a minor child is acting as the child's agent. Therefore, retaliating against the child (the principal) for the parent's (the agent's) protected opposition to harassment is equivalent to retaliating against the child for her own opposition, which is prohibited by Title VII.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'reasonableness' standard for an employer's anti-harassment policy under the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense, emphasizing that the policy must be functional and accessible for the specific workforce, including vulnerable employees like teenagers. It also sets a significant precedent by applying agency principles to Title VII retaliation claims involving minors, establishing that a parent's complaint on behalf of their child is protected activity attributed to the child. This holding strengthens protections for young workers by ensuring they do not lose their rights when a parent or guardian acts on their behalf.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. v & J Foods, Inc. (2007) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. v & J Foods, Inc.