On January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, concerning the potential reach of the anti-retaliation provisions of federal statutes.  The case concerns the standing to sue of persons who have not brought initial discrimination charges or claims to otherwise then assert employer retaliation.  In this case, an engaged couple worked for the same employer.  The female filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC; the male later filed a retaliation charge with the EEOC, and then a lawsuit, stating that he was fired in retaliation because his fiancé had filed an EEOC charge.  Noting that the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are designed to address employer actions that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge, the Court determined that, on the facts alleged, the male was not an accidental victim of retaliation and that the action against the male was designed to punish his fiancé.  As such, the Court determined that the male fell within the "zone of interests" protected by Title VII and that he had standing to pursue his retaliation claim.  The case was remanded for further proceedings. Determining which other individuals (friends, family members) might fall within the "zone of interests" will be driven by the facts of each case. Therefore, it is important for employers to realize that the concept of retaliation may likely extend beyond merely the employee complaining of discrimination.