Labor & Employment Law

SCOTUS: Employee has claim for third-party retaliation

Eric Thompson claimed he was fired because his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed an EEOC charge. The US Supreme Court unanimously held that if Thompson's alleged facts are true, then firing him was unlawful retaliation under Title VII.

Thompson v. North American Stainless (US Supreme Ct 01/24/2011)

Applying Burlington Northern v. White, 548 US 53 (2006), the Court said, "We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired."

Title VII grants Thompson a cause of action because he is a "person claiming to be aggrieved ... by an alleged employment practice." He was within the "zone of interests" sought to be protected by the statute.

My view:

This case raises two separate points.

1. First, is whether firing Thompson was unlawful retaliation. The Court says "we have little difficulty" on that point. This is because the test is whether the employer's action ?well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.? Well, of course the firing of Thompson would dissuade Regalado. They were engaged to be married.

   What about other relationships? What about an employee?s girlfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker? The Supreme Court is not going to answer that question for now. Employers will complain that they have to guess. And the lower courts will have to sort this out.

2. Second, is whether Thompson has a cause of action. The statute says "a civil action may be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved." That sounds simple enough.

   The Court rejected two extreme positions.

   • One position was suggested by some older cases that suggested that "aggrieved" was coextensive with the outer boundaries of Article III (constitutional) standing. The Court balked at that, saying, "If any person injured in the Article III sense by a Title VII violation could sue, absurd consequences would follow."
   • The other position was that "person aggrieved" refers only to the employee who engaged in the protected activity. The Court thought that was "artificially narrow."

   Ultimately, the Court relied on some Administrative Procedures Act cases under which a plaintiff may not sue unless he "falls within the 'zone of interests' sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint." Applying this concept, the Court said:

   Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation - collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer?s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer?s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.

   
   

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on January 24, 2011 (boomark / email).