South Carolina Case Law Update
Welcome to Collins & Lacy, P.C.

Hello friends, 

 
The Collins & Lacy's Employment Group works to provide you with timely information and updates on legal issues related to the practice of employment law. Recently, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling that could impact your business. Here is a summary of that opinion and what it means. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you need any additional information.
 

With warm regards,    
Christian E. Boesl
Employment Practice Group Chair 


 
Gavel

WORK PLACE RETALIATION LIABILITY BROADENS

 

THOMPSON v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS. LP,  561 U.S.   (2010)

 

 With its January 24, 2011 decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the United States Supreme Court case has significantly broadened the scope of Title VII and the anti-retaliation provision under the Civil Rights Act.  For the first time an employer can be responsible to a third party as a result of alleged discrimination of another.

 

In 2003 Petitioner Eric Thompson and his fianc� Mariam Regalado, were employees of North American Stainless (NAS).  In February 2003 Regalado filed a charge alleging sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against NAS.  As part of its investigation, EEOC contacted NAS employer regarding Regalado's charge.  Approximately three weeks later, NAS fired Regalado's fianc� Thompson.

 

Thompson later filed a charge with the EEOC and sued NAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The basis of his suit alleged he was retaliated against for Regalado filing her charge with the EEOC.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of NAS, concluding Title VII "does not permit third party retaliation claims."  Eventually the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling stating "Thompson did not engage in any statutorily protected activity, either on his own behalf or on behalf of Mariam Regalado."  The Sixth Circuit stated Thompson was not "included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action." 


 

 In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, opined the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers "a broad range of employed conduct" that could deter "a reasonable worker" from objecting to discrimination.  In reasoning Title VII's anti-retaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct, the Court relied upon its previous opinion in Burlington North and Sant� Fe Railroad Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).  (See website for Article written in DRI).  Unnecessary delay in dealing with an employment issue or even termination inevitably leads to larger problems, including retaliation claims.

 

To give balance to this significant broadening of Title VII, the Supreme Court found in order for a person to have standing under the retaliation portion of Title VII they must be a "person aggrieved".  The Court went on to explain a person aggrieved is one who "falls within the zone of interests' sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint."  Title VII's term "aggrieved" incorporates a test, enabling suit by any Plaintiff with an interest arguably [sought] to be protected by the statute. 

 

Applying the test here, the Court reasoned Thompson falls within the "zone of interest" protected by Title VII.  Thompson was an employee of NAS and Title VII's purpose is to protect employees from employer's unlawful actions.  Accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation, but rather hurting him comes from the unlawful Act by which NAS punished Regalado.  The Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the lower courts for trial. 

 

Although NAS had defended its termination of Thompson based upon poor performance and a "derogatory" memo written by Thompson, the combination of his relationship to Regalado and his termination just three weeks after the filing of the EEOC charge was too great for the Court to ignore.  With any retaliation case, time is always an essential factor to be considered with making employment decisions.  Good employment practice requires that if an employee is underperforming, consistent and immediate documentation must take place at the time of occurrence.  Documentation of the poor performance after the termination is often interpreted as conjectural and retaliatory. 

 

Should you have any need for employment related questions similar to this please do not hesitate to contact the Employment Practice Group of Collins & Lacy.

Collins & Lacy News
 



Employment   
Practice Group

Christian Boesl
Christian E. Boesl       803.255.0453

 
Aisha Taylor
Aisha Taylor
 803.255.0480

Jack attorney photo
Jack Griffeth
864.282.9104 

 
Charles attorney photo
Charles Appleby                 803.255.0409
 
 

CONTACT US 
 
 
COLUMBIA
P.O. Box 12487 (29211) 
Columbia, SC 29201
P: 803.256.2660
F: 803.771.4484
 
GREENVILLE
37 Villa Road, Suite 500
P.O. Box 5819 (29606)
Greenville, SC 29615
P: 864.282.9100 
F: 864.282.9101  
        
 
MYRTLE BEACH 
 
1500 Highway 17 N.,
Suite 204
P.O. Box 14609 (29587)
Surfside Beach, SC 29575
P: 843.477.0500
F: 843.477.0502
 
                      
Toll Free888.648.0526 
 
 
Email: 
   
  Find us on Facebook 
  Follow us on Twitter  
View our profile on LinkedIn