TITLE VII PROTECTS THIRD PARTIES FROM RETALIATION
Laura Scully
Does Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, allow for third-party retaliation claims? The Supreme Court recently considered this key issue in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP. Petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiancé were both employees of North American Stainless (“NAS”). Three weeks after she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination, NAS terminated Thompson’s employment. Thompson subsequently brought a retaliation suit against NAS under Title VII. The District Court and Appellate Court found that his claim was not within the purview of Title VII. In an opinion issued January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court confronted two issues: (1) whether firing an employee’s fiancé because the employee complained of discrimination amounts to unlawful retaliation; and (2) whether the employee’s fiancé has a cause of action against the employer under Title VII. The Court unanimously answered both questions in the affirmative.
Regarding the first issue, the Court reiterated that Title VII bars retaliatory actions that “‘well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’” While the Court stated that such potential for dissuasion is “obvious” if an employee knew that his or her fiancé would be terminated due to a discrimination complaint, the Court did not specify what other types of relationships and actions on the part of employers wouldbe sufficient to ground a third-party retaliation claim, noting: “We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the [above] standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. . . . We emphasize, however, that [Title VII’s] . . . ‘standard for judging harm must be objective.’”
Furthermore, declared the Court, Thompson has a cause of action, given the interests that Title VII was intended to safeguard. According to the Court, the standing to sue that Title VII confers is not restricted “to the person who was the subject of unlawful retaliation.” Rather, “any plaintiff with an interest ‘arguably [sought] to be protected by’” Title VII may have a cause of action. In light of this significant holding, it is advisable to be wholly familiar with the scope of Title VII’s protections and mindful of the potential for retaliation claims brought not just by employees who complain of discrimination, but also any coworkers with whom they are closely associated.
This Update is not intended to be legal advice, but rather is intended to inform the reader of problem areas and recent developments in labor and employment law. If legal advice is required concerning a particular matter, your attorney should be consulted.