Thompson v. North American Stainless

What’s at stake?
Protecting employees who suffer retaliation because family members assert their own workplace rights.  

Issue:
Whether workplace anti-discrimination laws prohibit an employer from firing an employee’s family member in retaliation for the employee’s filing of a discrimination claim. 

Decision date:
January 24, 2011

Outcome:
8-0 in favor of Thompson. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion; Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion; Justice Kagan recused.

What the court held: 
In a decision that protects employees’ workplace rights, the Court held that third parties can be protected by Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. 

Miriam Regalado filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that her supervisors at North American Stainless discriminated against her based on her gender. Three weeks after learning about her claim, Stainless Steel fired her fiancé.  He claimed that this violated Title VII, the law that prohibits workplace discrimination and prevents employers from taking action that might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about workplace discrimination.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that even if Stainless fired Thompson because of his fiancé’s complaint, this would not run afoul of Title VII. 

In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and noted, “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.”  In other words, the purpose of Title VII would be undermined if an employer could simply fire a third party to punish an employee who speaks up about illegal discrimination.

The Court also had to address whether a third party like the plaintiff in this case had standing to challenge the employer’s action.  The Court determined that an employee constitutes a “person aggrieved” and is eligible to bring a Title VII challenge when that person “falls within the ‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision.” Because Title VII was meant to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions, Thompson was protected by the statute. The Court declined to say how far this zone of protection extends, but did not have difficulty extending it to the fiancé of the person who filed a discrimination complaint.

The Court’s decision makes it less likely that employees who have been discriminated against will remain silent out of fear that they or a loved one could be fired if they speak out.   

 

Learn more:

Merit briefs:

Amicus briefs: