Minor harassed by manager

[momconcerned]

My 17yr old daughter works for a local restaurant chain as a hostess, recently her manager made sexually in appropriate comments to her during her shift. She reported it to another manager and an investigation is underway.

Since she is a minor, should she be allowed to be interviewed alone by the company representative conducting the investigation? Or should I be present?

 

[cbg]

There is no reason for you to be present.

 

[FlaRiptide]

Had a similar situation with my step-daughter who is also 17. In your situation the restaurant is a chain and therefore should have a human resource department which has policies to deal with this type of problem.

In my daughter's case, it was a mom & pop operation. The wife was the manager and was resistant to believing my daughter's allegations. The manager was protecting her "valued" cook who was the perpetrator. It wasn't till her mother and I stepped forward to pursue it with the owner (husband). He realized the problem wasn't going to vanish and made the proper decision to follow-up on the allegations.

That would be my only recommendation, make sure your daughter and you monitor the restaurant's reaction to the allegation and be ready to "beef up" the pursuit if they don't make the proper remedy.

Has your daughter spoken with other underage waitresses at this restaurant? This is probably not an isolated instance. Younger girls may not come forward and tell others, yet if your daughter can find out then this info will strengthen her allegation.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Since she is a minor, should she be allowed to be interviewed alone by the company representative conducting the investigation? Or should I be present?

A minor-yes you should be present but the employer wont request you be there. Parents are also legal guardians,and represent their minor children's in all legal affairs (for better of for worse) if your minor child breaks the neighbors window who is legally accountable? Likewise minors do not have the capacity to sue, their parents (through attorneys) act as their agents in suits filed.

 

[cbg]

With all due respect, I am thinking of the girl's feelings.

I have been a 17 year old girl. And when I was 16, only a year younger, I was the unwilling and inadvertant witness to an incident which resulted in my having to describe the genitalia of a gentleman I was unacquainted with, to the police and in a courtroom.

My parents were present; however, it would have been infinitely easier to have that conversation without them there, and I was too shy to ask them to step outside.

What's more important here; the mother's right to be present or the feelings of the girl herself?

If she WANTS the mother present, then by all means stay. But be sure it's what the daughter wants, not what the mother wants.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Bottom line the poster has a legal right as a parent to be present, it's real simple Momma knows best. Employers have a way of framing these things to the good of the company not the employee.

 

[cbg]

It's an INVESTIGATION, not a discplinary action. Give the girl some space.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Oh its disciplinary the only question is who will be disciplined and how.

 

[cbg]

Mom, I have conducted a number of sexual harassment investigations and your daughter is not on trial. Most employers, despite what GH would have you believe, are very careful with the handling of employees in this situation, especially minors. Leave it up to your daughter. If she wants you there, then you should be there. If she doesn't, then don't make it more difficult for her by insisting on it. This is hard enough for her without any additional pressure.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Mom, I have conducted a number of sexual harassment investigations and your daughter is not on trial. Most employers, despite what GH would have you believe, are very careful with the handling of employees in this situation, especially minors. Leave it up to your daughter. If she wants you there, then you should be there. If she doesn't, then don't make it more difficult for her by insisting on it. This is hard enough for her without any additional pressure.

Oh good lord! I have been through many employee investigations as well (Not with minors) You know your kid better than the rest of us, you are legally entitled to be present, thats the answer to your question poster. Minors are notorious for making the wrong choice, whether your daughter wants you there are not it is up to you as the parent to make that call.

 

[mlane58]

Can you cite any statutes referencing that? The employer can question an employee without mommy or daddy present. It's the POLICE who are constrained on who and when they may question without parents and/or legal representation and that depends on the state.

 

[Green_Hornet]

OOps..............................

 

[Green_Hornet]

Can you cite any statutes referencing that? The employer can question an employee without mommy or daddy present. It's the POLICE who are constrained on who and when they may question without parents and/or legal representation and that depends on the state.

Its in the body of common law it is not codified therefore it is so obvious no citation is needed, a private employer of minors is not "In Loco Parentis" , and the employer acts at his peril if he fails to warn parents when he knows or should know that their children are at substantial risk of workplace harassment, or other dangers."

Once notified the parent has the option of acting as the childs legal agent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (or applicable state rule) in any further proceeding that could give rise to litigation. This includes being at any investigation held by the employer that has an impact on the child. Minors have always enjoyed special legal protections under the common law for over 200 years, most would agree rightfully so.

Now as far as the police, that's a whole separate body of criminal law that has little or nothing to do with what the poster is asking about.

 

[mlane58]

Obvious? No it isn't. and Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) ? please! Since when did an employer become a court of law? When an incident rises to any sort of litigation then Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) can come into play and until that happens as I stated earlier Mommy or Daddy do not have a right to be present during an employer's investigation.

 

[Green_Hornet]

The most recent case of this was upheld in EEOC v. V&J foods (A.K.A Burger King) The judge upheld found for the plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17.

The court concluded:

People often act through agents, such as lawyers; and minors, especially because of their legal and functional incapacities, must act through agents in any legal matter,and their agents are their parents or guardians. Merriweather could not have sued V & J on her own. And if she sued by her "next friend" (her mother), as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) and illustrated by such cases as Black v. North Panola School District, 461 F.3d 584 (5th Cir.2006); Gant ex rel. Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999),

In EEOC v. V&J foods Merriweather's mother (Plaintiff) came to the restaurant and complained to a shift supervisor named McBride about a supervisors sexual harassment of her daughter. Wilkins (the Manger) was not present. McBride professed ignorance of the matter and reported the mother's intervention to Wilkins as soon as he returned—whereupon he fired Merriweather daughter,on the ground that she had involved her mother in the matter rather than handling it "like a lady."

What distinguishes this case,was not the Titlle VII violation (All though the employer was guilty of that as well) but the courts findings,on parental intervention,under various readings. So no ;a minor's parents pointing out issues that may have legal ramifications,had better not be told they are not under any legal onligation to talk to the parents,or fire the minor in retaliation for the parents intervention. It's that simple.

 

[mlane58]

The most recent case of this was upheld in EEOC v. V&J foods (A.K.A Burger King) The judge upheld found for the plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17.

The court concluded:


In EEOC v. V&J foods Merriweather's mother (Plaintiff) came to the restaurant and complained to a shift supervisor named McBride about a supervisors sexual harassment of her daughter. Wilkins (the Manger) was not present. McBride professed ignorance of the matter and reported the mother's intervention to Wilkins as soon as he returned—whereupon he fired Merriweather daughter,on the ground that she had involved her mother in the matter rather than handling it "like a lady."

What distinguishes this case,was not the Titlle VII violation (All though the employer was guilty of that as well) but the courts findings,on parental intervention,under various readings. So no ;a minor's parents pointing out issues that may have legal ramifications,had better not be told they are not under any legal onligation to talk to the parents,or fire the minor in retaliation for the parents intervention. It's that simple.

It's not that simple. In the case you cite, Merriweather's mother acted as her daughter's agent in confronting Wilkins about the sexual harassment of her daughter.

In retaliating against Merriweather for her mother's inter- vention, Wilkins was retaliating against the principal, her daughter, just as if Merriweather's lawyer had com- plained to Wilkins about Wilkins's harassing his client and he had responded by firing Merriweather.

The court didn't say anything about the employer being obligated to speak with the parent or agent. The court reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court in part because of the retaliation for the mother's intervention. Nowhere in the cite does the court say that the employer is obligated to speak with the mother or agent and this is where the difference lies. No employer is obligated or has to permit an employee to have an attorney or agent present during an investigation or inquiry.

 

[Green_Hornet]

... Nowhere in the cite does the court say that the employer is obligated to speak with the mother or agent and this is where the difference lies. No employer is obligated or has to permit an employee to have an attorney or agent present during an investigation or inquiry.

Well feel free to believe that-never the less the justice cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 in favor of the parent. A private employer of minors is not "In Loco Parentis" , and Minors enjoy special legal protections under the common law. Adults are the legal agents in their child's affairs nothing changes any of that.

An employer that forgets any of that does so at their own detriment, and could have a Whopper of a lawsuit like Burger King did. Your making the same mistake Wilkens did, and theres no doubt he ended up down the road.

You even said it yourself:

In retaliating against Merriweather for her mother's intervention, Wilkins was retaliating against the principal, her daughter, just as if Merriweather's lawyer had complained to Wilkins about Wilkins's harassing his client and he had responded by firing Merriweather.

Exactly the mother was exercising her rights as a parent, the Justice made the Nexus between Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and the minor child parent intervention in an adverse action against the minor. In short if a parent wants to be at the investigation of their minor child, the employer had best not say "pound sand Momma! No employer is obligated or has to permit an employee to have an attorney or agent present during an investigation or inquiry".