Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 23

Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
Supreme Court of the United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011).
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-291.pdf
FACTS Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were employees of North American Stainless, LP (NAS). In February 2003, Regalado filed a gender discrimination claim against NAS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Three weeks later, NAS fired Thompson. Thompson then filed a claim with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, he sued NAS in a U.S. district court, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thompson claimed that NAS had fired him in retaliation for Regalado's complaint to the EEOC. The district court granted summary judgment for NAS, concluding that Title VII "does not permit third-party retaliation claims." Thompson appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Thompson appealed again, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE Can an employee who was fired because his fiancée filed a gender discrimination claim against their employer sue that employer for retaliation in violation of Title VII?
DECISION Yes. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII's antiretaliation provision covers a broad range of employer conduct, including third-party retaliation claims. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a determination of the facts. If the facts were as Thompson alleged, then NAS's firing of Thompson had violated Title VII.
REASON The Court compared the language of Title VII's antiretaliation provision with the language of its antidiscrimination provision and concluded that the antiretaliation provision is worded more broadly. Accordingly, the Court reasoned that the antiretaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. The provisionprohibits any employer action that "might [dissuade] a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." In the Court's view, it was obvious that a reasonable worker (such as Miriam Regalado) might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired as a result.
WHY IS THIS CASE IMPORTANT? This case is important for business owners and managers because it illustrates the broad coverage of Title VII's antiretaliation provision. Any company that employs more than one member of a family must be very careful not to retaliate against one family member for legally protected actions taken by another family member. Many companies try to avoid potential problems by establishing a policy of not hiring relatives of employees. Such a policy would not have avoided the problems that arose in this case, however, because the employees were not married and thus were not "family."