In a much-anticipated opinion released today, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII’s retaliation provisions protect third parties from retaliation in addition to complainants.
In Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, (Case No. 009-291), Eric Thompson and his fiancée Miriam Regalado were employees of North American Stainless (NAS). Regalado filed a charge of discrimination against NAS alleging sex discrimination; 3 weeks later Thompson was fired. Thompson then filed a charge alleging he was terminated in retaliation for his fiancée’s filing of her charge of discrimination. The district court granted NAS summary judgment on the ground that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted by Title VII, and this was affirmed by the 6th Circuit.
Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia recited the retaliation standard previously enunciated by the Court in White, i.e., Title VII”s anti-retaliation provisions prohibit any employer action that “well might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a [discrimination] charge.’” Applying this standard to the facts in Thompson led the Court to conclude that it was “obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancée would be fired.”
Given the Court’s prior decisions giving a broad construction to retaliation protections, is anyone surprised by this decision? How does it affect how we, as practitioners, advise our employer and EPLI insurer clients?