Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP

2011-01-24

Headline: Court allows an employee to sue after being fired in retaliation for his fiancée’s EEOC complaint, ruling Title VII can cover certain third-party reprisals and letting those suits move forward in court.

Holding: The Court held that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision can cover an employee fired to retaliate against someone else, and that such a third party may sue if his interests fall within the statute’s protected zone of interests.

Real World Impact:

Permits employees fired because of a coworker’s complaint to sue their employer.
Employers may face liability for targeting relatives or close associates to punish complainants.
Courts will judge third-party retaliation case-by-case under an objective harm standard.

Topics: workplace retaliation, employment discrimination, third-party retaliation, EEOC complaints

Summary

Background

Eric Thompson was an employee whose fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a sex-discrimination charge with the EEOC. Shortly after that filing, their employer, North American Stainless, fired Thompson. Thompson filed his own federal lawsuit saying the company punished him to retaliate against Regalado. Lower courts split, and the appeals court ultimately ruled against Thompson before the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court first agreed that firing Thompson could be unlawful retaliation because such conduct might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint. The tougher question was who may sue. The Court rejected the idea that anyone with a technical injury could sue, and also rejected the idea that only the person who engaged in the protected activity may sue. Instead, the Court adopted a familiar test called the “zone of interests,” meaning a plaintiff may sue if his interests are the kind the law was meant to protect. Applying that test, the Court found Thompson fits: NAS targeted him deliberately to harm Regalado, so he is a “person aggrieved” under Title VII. The Court reversed the appeals court and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision means people closely linked to someone who files an EEOC complaint—like a spouse or close associate—may be able to sue if they are fired or punished as a way of retaliating against the complainant. The Court did not set bright-line rules about which relationships qualify; courts will apply an objective standard case by case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, added that the EEOC’s guidance supports protecting close associates and that the agency’s view deserves respectful consideration.