Opinion ID: 611820
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lowe

Text: 21 We believe that maintaining Lowe as a defendant is grounds for sanctions. There is no colorable argument that Lowe, a minor employed as a frequent shopper hostess, is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. An employer is defined as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees ..., and any agent of such person. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Agent has been interpreted to include only those employees who perform managerial or supervisory functions. York v. Tennessee Crushed Stone Ass'n, 684 F.2d 360 (6th Cir.1982). Moreover, Lowe engaged in no activity proscribed by Title VII; she did not fire or discriminate against plaintiff because of his gender. The magistrate judge found that while plaintiff had no basis to sue Lowe under Title VII, this did not provide a basis upon which to sanction plaintiff because she was sued on pendent state claims and because Lowe filed a counterclaim. This finding is clearly in error. In the absence of the Title VII claim, the state claims could not be brought in federal court, and Lowe's counterclaim is irrelevant to the merit of plaintiff's federal claim against her. The failure to undertake the appropriate Rule 11 inquiry was an abuse of discretion. 22