US Supreme Court Issues Opinion Affirming Claim for Retaliation Under Title VII
On Monday, January 24, The US Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion in the case of Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, (NAS) finding that the terminated fiancee of a co-worker could bring a retaliation suit against their employer after she filed a discrimination charge under Title VII. Ms. Regalado, Mr. Thompson's fiancee, (they are now married) filed a charge of sex discrimination against NAS, and NAS was notified of the charge by the EEOC in February, 2003. Thompson was fired 3 weeks later, and he filed a charge alleging that NAS retaliated against Regalado for filing her charge with the EEOC by terminating him. With Justice Kagan not participating, the Supreme Court found that his termination was retaliatory. Relying on the 2006 Burlington Northern case, the Court held that employers are prohibited from taking any action that "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." The Court concluded that it is "obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancee would be fired." The Court was not clear in providing guidance to employers as to what relationships may give rise to this protected status: the Court found that the termination of a close family member would "almost always" give rise to a claim." Justice Scalia, writing the opinion, found that "Title VII's anti-retaliation provision is simply not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules".The opinion also states: "Perhaps retaliating against an employee by firing his fiancee would dissuade the employee from engaging in a protected activity, but what about firing an employee's girlfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker?"
Practice pointer. The Court's opinion is clear that an employee who is fired after his/her fiancee files a charge of sex discrimination is protected from retaliation under Title VII. The opinion is also clear that a "close family member" MAY be protected: but the Court did define what a "close family member" is, or how they may be protected. Likewise, a "mere acquaintance" MAY not be protected: again, the Court did not define what a "mere acquaintance" is, or how they may not be protected. With a very large gray area between fiancee and mere acquaintance, employers have another area of potential exposure every time they terminate, or in my opinion, take an adverse employment action against an employee. Do they have a fiancee working there? A trusted family member? A mere acquaintance who may or may not be protected from termination? It will take years and many court cases to set the boundaries as to who is protected and who is not.
