It's been almost a year since the US Supreme Court reached a decision that "association discrimination" is a valid Title VII cause of action. The court held that such "retaliation extends to adverse employment actions taken to punish an associate of a person who made a discrimination complaint, such as a family member or other person within the zone of interests protected by Title VII."
Miriam Regalado, an employee of North American Stainless, filed an EEOC charge alleging that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender. Three weeks later her fiance, Eric Thompson, was terminated by the company. Eric Thompson filed his own EEOC claim alleging that his termination was in retaliation of his fiances EEOC charge.
Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because s/he engaged in certain protected activity. Under Thompson v. North American Stainless, the following questions were asked:
1. Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity; and,
2. If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that if Thompson's alleged facts are true, then firing him was an unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
Miriam Regalado, an employee of North American Stainless, filed an EEOC charge alleging that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender. Three weeks later her fiance, Eric Thompson, was terminated by the company. Eric Thompson filed his own EEOC claim alleging that his termination was in retaliation of his fiances EEOC charge.
Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because s/he engaged in certain protected activity. Under Thompson v. North American Stainless, the following questions were asked:
1. Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity; and,
2. If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that if Thompson's alleged facts are true, then firing him was an unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
Thompson v. North American Stainless, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment