Supreme Court Says Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Provision Allows For Third-Party Retaliation Claims

Does Title VII's anti-retaliation provision allow for third-party retaliation claims? Yes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Thompson v. North American Steel, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (2011). In the wake of this decision, employers must not only be aware of the protected conduct of employees being considered for discipline or termination, but also of the protected conduct of other employees with whom those being disciplined or terminated have a close personal relationship. If employers aren't careful, they may find themselves as named defendants in a third-party retaliation claim. Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell attorney Brian Hayden discusses some of the legal challenges to employers created by the Thompson decision.

Related Questions

The Supreme Court's decision in Thompson has far reaching implications for employers. Can you summarize the main points? Most employers already know that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibits them from taking any action that might discourage a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In Thompson, the Court extended the protections of Title VII's anti-retaliation provision to employees who themselves have not engaged in protected conduct, but who have a close personal relationship (i.e., a dating or familial relationship) with another employee who has. What this basically means is that employers now risk being sued anytime they fire or otherwise discipline an employee who has a close relationship with another employee who has engaged in conduct protected by Title VII. What happened in the Thompson case? In Thompson, employer North American Stainless terminated Eric Thompson three weeks after his co-worker and fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the company. Thompson sued, claiming North American fired him in retaliation for Regalado's protected activity of filing an EEOC charge. Without addressing the merits of Thompson's claim, the Court held that if his allegations were true, his firing violated Title VII. While the Court acknowledged that allowing retaliation claims against third parties would lead to difficult...