Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 20.1
THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP
Supreme Court of the United States
562 U.S. 170; 131 S. Ct. 863; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913 [January 24, 2011]
FACTS:
Until 2003, both petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were employees of
respondent North American Stainless (NAS).
In February 2003, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notified NAS that
Regalado had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination.
Three weeks later, NAS fired Thompson.
Thompson then filed a charge with the EEOC.
After conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, Thompson sued NAS in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming
that NAS had fired him in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge with the EEOC.
PROCEDURE: The District Court granted summary judgment to NAS. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit granted rehearing en banc and affirmed.
ISSUE(S): (1) Did NAS’s firing of Thompson constitute unlawful retaliation?
(2) If it did, does Title VII grant Thompson a cause of action?
RULE: (1) “The antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to
discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment. Rather, Title VII’s
antiretaliation provisions prohibits any employer action that ‘well might have dissuaded a reasonable
worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’”
(2) “Title VII provides that ‘a civil action may be brought…by the person claiming to be aggrieved.’ The
provision unquestionably permits a person ‘claiming to be aggrieved,’ to bring ‘a civil action.’ It is
arguable that the aggrievement referred to is nothing more than the minimal Article III standing, which
consists of injury in fact caused by defendant and remediable by the courts.”
REASONING:
1. The Court held that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of
employer conduct.
2. The Court determined it was obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without
the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
5. Injuring Thompson was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the
unlawful act by which the employer punished her.
6. Given the circumstances, Thompson was well within the zone of interests sought to be protected
by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Court declined to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are
unlawful. The Court determined that firing a close family member will almost always meet the
Burlington standard [Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v White, 548 U.S. 53; 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006)], and
inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are
reluctant to generalize.
“The significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular
