In a decision that could subject employers to more retaliation lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that in certain situations, a third party, who was not personally discriminated against, may bring a retaliation suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Facts
In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, an employee whose fiancée filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his association with her. He alleged that his relationship to her was the sole motive for his discharge (he conceded that he had not engaged in any protected activity on his own). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful to retaliate against someone who has opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII or "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner" in a discrimination investigation, proceeding or lawsuit. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found in favor of the employer, ruling that Title VII protects from retaliation only those who have engaged in activity protected by the law, not individuals who are merely related in some way to such an individual.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts, finding that the plaintiff had standing to sue his employer for retaliation under Title VII because he fell within the "zone of interests" protected by Title VII. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision must be interpreted to cover a broad range of employer conduct. While the statute's discrimination provision is limited to discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, the anti-retaliation provision covers any employer action that might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Here, the Court concluded that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from filing a discrimination charge if he or she knew that his or her fiancée might get fired.
Lessons Learned
Retaliation lawsuits have consistently been on the rise, with innumerable decisions concluding that although the employer did not discriminate against an employee, the employer's response to the employee's complaint nonetheless resulted in unlawful retaliation. This decision expands the types of retaliation claims that may be brought under Title VII to include so-called "associational retaliation." Moreover, the Court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful, noting: "We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the... standard" for alleging a claim of retaliation, whereas "inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize." In light of the Court's broad language, employers are cautioned to take care when handling complaints of discrimination, as well as when handling employee discipline of family members or close acquaintances of employees who have complained of discrimination, in order to avoid actual or perceived retaliation.