The Supreme Court just expanded your company’s exposure to retaliation lawsuits.
The court ruled in favor of Eric Thompson, who claimed he’d been fired in retaliation for his fiancee’s sex discrimination claim against their mutual employer.
A lower court had tossed Thompson’s suit on the grounds that he hadn’t engaged in any “statutorily protected activity” — in other words, he hadn’t been the one who claimed bias or done anything else that’s protected under federal law.
Thus, the judge reasoned, Thompson had no grounds to bring suit for retaliation.
But the Supreme Court said that ruling was an overly narrow interpretation of federal law. In certain circumstances, people who are closely related to an employee who’s engaged in protected activity should be allowed to sue for retaliation.
She complains, he’s fired
A quick look at the case: Thompson and Miriam Regalado met through their work at North American Stainless in Kentucky. They began dating and eventually were engaged to be married, a fact that was common knowledge throughout the company.
Then Regalado filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charging she’d been discriminated against on account of her gender. Three weeks after the company was notified of the complaint, North American Stainless fired Thompson.
Thompson filed suit, saying he’d been fired because his fiance filed a bias complaint — a claim described by lawyers as “associational retaliation.”
In court, the company argued he’d been sacked for performance reasons.
‘The true target’
In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said it was clear that Regalado was the true target of the company’s actions. “Injuring (Thompson) was the employer’s intended means of harming (her). … In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests protected” under federal laws against discrimination, Scalia wrote.
The decision doesn’t mean Thompson’s won his case against North American Stainless — it merely means he can now go forward with his retaliation suit.
No matter how that comes out, however, it’s clear that employees now have a wider playing field when it comes to mulling charges against employers.
The case is Thompson v. North American Stainless. For a look at the full ruling, go here.
