Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
131 S. Ct. 863, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913, 178 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's antiretaliation provision prohibits employers from taking actions that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, and allows a third-party, indirectly targeted individual to sue if they are a 'person claiming to be aggrieved' within the statute's 'zone of interests'.
Facts:
- Eric Thompson and Miriam Regalado were both employees of North American Stainless (NAS) until 2003.
- In February 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified NAS that Miriam Regalado had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination against the company.
- Three weeks after NAS received the EEOC notification, the company fired Eric Thompson, who was Miriam Regalado's fiancé.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Thompson filed a charge with the EEOC after his termination.
- After conciliation efforts by the EEOC failed, Thompson sued NAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to NAS, concluding that Title VII does not permit third-party retaliation claims.
- A panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.
- The Sixth Circuit then granted rehearing en banc and affirmed the District Court's judgment by a 10-to-6 vote, reasoning that Thompson did not engage in protected activity and therefore was not within the class of persons protected by Title VII's retaliation cause of action.
- The Supreme Court granted 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:
1. Does an employer's firing of an employee's fiancé constitute unlawful retaliation under Title VII if done to punish the employee for filing a discrimination charge? 2. Does Title VII grant a cause of action to a third-party employee who is fired in retaliation for a close associate's protected activity, as a 'person claiming to be aggrieved'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes, an employer's firing of an employee's fiancé constitutes unlawful retaliation under Title VII if done to punish the employee for filing a discrimination charge. The Court has previously held in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White that Title VII's antiretaliation provision is broad, prohibiting any employer action that 'well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.' Firing a close family member, such as a fiancé, is an act that would clearly dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity, and there is no textual basis to create an exception for third-party reprisals. The Court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships, noting that the significance of a retaliatory act depends on objective circumstances, but that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard. Yes, Title VII grants a cause of action to a third-party employee who is fired in retaliation for a close associate's protected activity, as a 'person claiming to be aggrieved.' The term 'person claiming to be aggrieved' in 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(1) is not limited to those who directly engage in protected activity, nor is it as expansive as Article III standing, which could lead to absurd results (e.g., shareholder suits). Instead, the Court held that the term incorporates the 'zone of interests' test from the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning a plaintiff may sue if their interests are 'arguably sought to be protected by the statute' and are not marginally related to its purposes. Thompson, as an employee of NAS, falls within Title VII's zone of interests because the statute protects employees from unlawful employer actions. Crucially, Thompson was not an accidental victim; injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado for her protected activity, placing him squarely within the protected zone of interests.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, Title VII allows for such claims and the employee has a cause of action. The Court’s decision aligns with the longstanding views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for administering Title VII. The EEOC’s Compliance Manual explicitly states that Title VII prohibits retaliation against someone closely related or associated with a person exercising their statutory rights, particularly if it would discourage the protected activity. The Manual also clarifies that both the individual who engaged in protected activity and the related employee can challenge such retaliation. This consistent interpretation by the EEOC, which merits deference, reinforces the Court’s holding and is consistent with interpretations of analogous statutes by other federal agencies.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of Title VII's antiretaliation provision by explicitly recognizing the legality of third-party retaliation claims. It clarifies that the protected class is not limited to those who directly engage in protected activity, but includes those who are within the 'zone of interests' the statute seeks to protect, particularly when they are the employer's intended target for harming another employee. This ruling provides greater protection against subtle forms of retaliation, deters employers from using proxies to punish employees for exercising their rights, and offers a clear framework for standing in such cases, extending Title VII's reach while avoiding overly broad interpretations of 'aggrieved.'
