The Supreme Court holds that a third-party who was terminated after his fiancée made a complaint of discrimination is protected under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision.

In Thompson, the plaintiff sought protection from Title VII's anti-retaliation provision after his employment was terminated, arguing that the employer terminated his employment because his fiancée filed a complaint of discrimination against the company. The trial court and the Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiff's Title VII claim failed as a matter of law, holding that Title VII does not permit third party retaliation claims. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the termination of the plaintiff could constitute unlawful retaliation and Title VII grants the employee a cause of action. In so holding, the Court noted that "Title VII's anti-retaliation provision prohibits any employer action that 'well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination'" and "it [is] obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancée would be fired." In addition, the Court expressly noted that a Title VII claim may be brought by "the person claiming to be aggrieved" and reasoned that this provision applies to a person "within the zone of interests protected by Title VII." Accordingly, while the plaintiff in this case was afforded protection by Title VII, the Court declined to "identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful." With this, it will be important for employers to recognize family and romantic relationships in their workplace in order to avoid potential third-party retaliation claims.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011