Fired Fiancé of Harassed Employee Can Sue For Retaliation

On Jan. 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP and held that a employer's firing of an employee, who was "closely related" to another employee who also worked for the company and who had filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), constituted unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Right Act.

The analysis by the court was that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are to be broadly construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct, and that they were designed to prohibit employer action that well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Accordingly, since a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in the protected activity of filing a charge of discrimination if that worker believed that her fiancé would be fired, in what is now known as "the case of the fired fiancé," the Supreme Court held that Title VII permits third-party retaliation claims.

The facts and procedural history are as follows:

In 2003, while employed at the company Miriam Regalado, filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later, Regalado's fiancé, Erik Thompson was fired. The company said it fired him for poor performance and writing a memo "derogatory to [it's] management practices."

Thompson then filed his own charge with the EEOC. The EEOC investigation into Thompson's complaint found "reasonable cause to believe that [company] violated Title VII." After unsuccessful attempts at conciliation, the EEOC granted Thompson a right-to-sue letter and Thompson filed his Title VII retaliation claim against the company.

The federal district court dismissed Thompson's suit and entered judgment in favor of the company, finding that Thompson failed to state a claim of retaliation because he himself did not engage in any activities protected by Title VII. Thompson appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and on this issue so have the 3rd, 5th and 8th circuit courts. But a number of federal district courts around the country did permit third party claims. The EEOC also interpreted Title VII to permit such claims.

The Supreme Court resolved the disagreement among the federal courts and held that "Title VII's anti-retaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct" and to protect individuals who fall within the "zone of interest protected by Title VII." The Court acknowledged that lines will have to be drawn in future cases. "[W]hat about firing an employee's girlfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker?" the Court rhetorically asked.

Thompson's status as Regalado's fiancé was close enough to raise an inference that the company acted against him because Regalado had complained about sex discrimination. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded the case, finding that if the facts alleged were true, Thompson's firing constituted unlawful retaliation.

But the outer limits of Title VII's protection of third parties is unclear. The Court noted "that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so." Beyond that, the court was reluctant to generalize. Therefore, employers will need to engage in a fact sensitive inquiry shout the situation and circumstances warrant. Thompson v. North American Stainless

Case Law Summary February 2011

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Thompson
• Norht American Stainless
• EEOC
• Employment
• unlawful retaliation
• title vii
• civil right act
• discrimination
• employment discrimination
• anti-retaliation