Supreme Court Holds That Third Party Retaliation Claims Are Permitted Under Title VII

In a decision issued last week, the Supreme Court held that punishing an employee who is related to or closely associated with a co-worker that has filed a discrimination claim against their employer constitutes unlawful retaliation and confers upon that employee a right to sue under Title VII.   

By allowing this third party retaliation claim to go forward, the Supreme Court broadens the type of plaintiffs who are entitled to seek protection under Title VII.  The decision serves as a cautionary tale to employers who may unlawfully seek reprisal - or even appear to seek reprisal - against one employee based on the protected activity of another.

Thompson v. North American Stainless (NAS)

Under the facts of the case, Petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were both employed by NAS.  In February 2003, Ms. Regalado filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").  Three weeks after NAS was notified of the charge, Thompson was fired.

Thompson filed his own lawsuit claiming that NAS fired him in retaliation for Regalado's filing of an EEOC charge.  At the trial level, NAS succeeded in dismissing Thompson's claim on the ground that Title VII does not permit such third party retaliation claims. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit ultimately agreed holding that Thompson was not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action under Title VII.

Supreme Court Reversal

The Supreme Court reversed.  In doing so, the Court considered the broad range of employer conduct covered by Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, which forbids any actions that "might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."  The Court determined that Thompson's firing was retaliatory if triggered by the filing of Regalado's complaint because a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in such protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired as a result. 

The Potential for Increased Litigation Against Employers 

Although recognizing that its ruling may lead to difficult line-drawing problems concerning the types of relationships entitled to protection, the Court declined to set forth any "fixed class" of relationships for which third party reprisals are unlawful.  Instead, the Court left the issue open to case-by-case determinations, which potentially translates to increased litigation against employers by such third parties until the legal thresholds are established.   

What Employers Can Do

• In the meantime, employers can protect themselves against exposure by being mindful to check any conduct that may be deemed to be a reprisal against an employee related to or associated with a co-worker that has filed a discrimination charge or engaged in other protected activity. 
   
•  In addition, an employer should thoroughly document the basis for any adverse employment actions taken against that employee to shut down a claim of retaliation in the future.

Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C. is available to assist you with any employment law issues you may have.  If you have any questions regarding retaliation claims and how these claims may affect your business, please contact the Nukk-Freeman & Cerra attorney with whom you normally work.
 

Any tax advice included in this written or electronic communication was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by any governmental taxing authority or agency.