Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
562 U.S. 170, 178 L. Ed. 2d 694, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibits employer actions that are likely to dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination, including firing a close family member of the complaining employee. The fired family member is a "person aggrieved" with a cause of action under Title VII because they fall within the 'zone of interests' protected by the statute.
Facts:
- Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were both employees of North American Stainless (NAS).
- In February 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified NAS that Regalado had filed a charge against the company alleging sex discrimination.
- Three weeks after NAS received this notification, it terminated Thompson's employment.
- Thompson alleged that NAS fired him as a means of retaliating against Regalado for her protected activity of filing an EEOC charge.
Procedural Posture:
- Thompson filed a Title VII retaliation lawsuit against NAS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
- The District Court (a trial court) granted summary judgment to NAS, concluding that Title VII does not permit third-party retaliation claims.
- Thompson, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and a three-judge panel reversed the District Court's decision.
- The Sixth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court) then granted a rehearing en banc (by the full court), where it affirmed the District Court's original judgment in favor of NAS, the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Thompson's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.
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 Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibit an employer from firing an employee in retaliation for his fiancée's protected activity, and if so, is the fired employee a 'person claiming to be aggrieved' with a cause of action under the statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. Firing an employee's fiancé to punish the employee for filing a discrimination charge constitutes unlawful retaliation, and the fired fiancé has a cause of action under Title VII. First, applying the standard from Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, an employer's action is retaliatory if it might have 'dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.' The Court found it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from filing a charge if she knew her fiancé would be fired as a consequence. The Court declined to create a fixed list of relationships protected from such third-party reprisals, opting for a case-by-case analysis based on the specific circumstances. Second, the Court held that Thompson had standing to sue as a 'person claiming to be aggrieved.' Rejecting an interpretation as broad as Article III standing or as narrow as only the person who engaged in protected activity, the Court adopted the 'zone of interests' test. Thompson falls within this zone because he was an employee of NAS, the statute's purpose is to protect employees, and injuring him was the very means by which NAS unlawfully retaliated against his fiancée, Regalado.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. I join the Court's opinion but write to add that the decision is consistent with the long-held position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC's Compliance Manual explicitly states that Title VII prohibits retaliation against someone closely related to the person who exercised their statutory rights. This interpretation by the agency responsible for administering Title VII merits deference and reinforces the correctness of the Court's conclusion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of Title VII's anti-retaliation protections by explicitly recognizing third-party reprisal claims. It establishes that retaliation can be inflicted upon one employee to punish another, so long as the action meets the Burlington standard of deterring a reasonable worker. Furthermore, by adopting the 'zone of interests' test for standing under Title VII, the Court clarifies who may bring suit, extending the right beyond just the individual who engaged in the protected activity. This creates a flexible, context-dependent standard that will likely increase the volume of retaliation litigation by protecting a wider, though not unlimited, circle of individuals connected to an employee who files a discrimination charge.
