WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) An employer may not use
third-party reprisal as a means of retaliating against the third party's
fiancée, an employee who filed a discrimination claim, and the third-party employee
has standing to sue the employer, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Jan. 24,
reversing an en banc Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling (Thompson
v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, U.S. Sup.).
Eric Thompson and his then
fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were both employed by North American Stainless LP
(NAS) when Regalado filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. NAS fired Thompson, and Thompson filed his own
charge with the EEOC, alleging that he was fired to retaliate against Regalado
for filing her charge.
Thompson sued NAS in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging that NAS violated
Title VII, which forbids discrimination for the filing of a charge. The
District Court dismissed Thompson's complaint, finding that Title VII "does not
permit third party retaliation claims."
A divided Sixth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals panel reversed. But following a rehearing en banc, the
court upheld the dismissal of Thompson's complaint, reasoning that Thompson was
not entitled to sue NAS for retaliation because Thompson had not engaged in any
In reversing, the Supreme Court
held that, "if the facts alleged by Thompson are true," then NAS's firing of
Thompson constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII, saying
that "[w]e think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from
engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancée would be fired."
The Supreme Court then ruled that
Thompson had a cause of action under Title VII against NAS. Thompson
"falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII" because "Thompson
was an employee of NAS, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees
from their employers' unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as
alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court's opinion, in which
all other justices joined, except Justice Elena Kagan, who took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in
which Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined, stating that "[t]oday's decision
accords with the longstanding views of the" EEOC.
[Editor's Note: Full
coverage will be in the February issue of Mealey's Litigation Report:
Employment Law. In the meantime, the opinion is available at www.mealeysonline.com or by
calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844. Document
#73-110211-004Z. For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.]
Mealeysonline.com - Document #73-110211-004Z
For more information, call
editor Bajeerah LaCava at 215-988-7731, or e-mail her at firstname.lastname@example.org.