ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Northwest Business Litigation Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Northwest Business Litigation Blog

US Supreme Court: Fiance of an individual who engaged in protected conduct can sue for retaliation

By Heidee Stoller

ADVERTISEMENTS

In Thompson v. North American Stainless, the US Supreme Court last week held that the fiancé of an individual who filed an EEOC complaint could bring a claim for retaliation under Title VII.

In this case, the plaintiff was terminated three weeks after the EEOC notified his employer that his fiancé had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination against that employer. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the employer fired him in retaliation for his fiancé?s actions. The Sixth Circuit held that he did not engage in activity protected by the antiretaliation provision of Title VII, and therefore was not part of the class of persons for protected by the law.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court overruled the Sixth Circuit and held that the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to state a retaliation claim under Title VII. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously held that the Title VII antiretaliation provision prohibits ?any employer action that well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.? The Court held that it is ?obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.? While the Court did not ?identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful,? it noted that firing a close family member would almost always qualify, whereas ?inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so.?

The Court also clarified the question of who may sue under Title VII, which allows civil actions to be brought by ?the person claiming to be aggrieved.? The Court rejected an argument that this language should be construed as allowing anyone with Article III standing to bring a claim. The Court instead applied the test from the Administrative Procedures Act, ?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.?

Full post as published by Northwest Business Litigation Blog on January 31, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.013 secs (new cache)