Employers take note: employees do not have to complain about sexual harassment to the personnel or human resources department to put the organization on notice of a problem. According to a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. Bayer Corp., No. 96-3700, 9/5/97, an employee’s complaints to her department head of sexual harassment by her foreman put the company on notice of the sexual harassment. The Seventh Circuit sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration of whether Bayer was negligent in failing to act promptly to the complaint of sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Creating HR Policies or Employee Handbook?]

                            [Download Free Policies]

Between the middle of 1989 and December 1992, the employee complained to her department head at least five times that her foreman was sexually harassing her. The department head talked to the foreman about the employee’s complaints, but did not report the complaints to the plant’s personnel director. The harassment continued, and the employee complained to another supervisory employee in December 1992 who reported the complaint to the personnel director. According to the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the facts of the case showed that the personnel director acted promptly and responsibly when finally notified of the complaint. However, the court determined that there is still a question that must be resolved whether Bayer was negligent for not acting on the complaints of sexual harassment prior to the personnel director’s involvement in December 1992.

The court specifically addressed the issue of when an organization is notified of a sexual harassment complaint and, therefore, must take action to address the complaint. It determined that if an organization does not have a "clearly marked, accessible, and adequate channel for complaints," an employee may still put the company on notice by complaining to a person the employee reasonably believed was authorized to receive and forward, or respond to, a complaint of harassment. In this case, Bayer had an internal process for harassment complaints which offered four authorized channels for lodging complaints, including complaining to her department head. The court rejected Bayer’s argument that department heads were "too far down the corporate ladder" to count as receiving notice. Since Bayer authorized its employees to complain to their department heads, it must have believed that the department heads would resolve the complaints or refer them to someone who could respond effectively.