join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09–291, U.S. Supreme Court (January 24, 2011).

Articles Discussing Case:

High Court Allows Third-Party Retaliation Suit

Ogletree Deakins • February 08, 2011
On January 24, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing an opinion supported by eight justices, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee who was fired shortly after his fiancée filed a bias charge against her employer may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for third-party retaliation. According to the high court, the employee could be considered an "aggrieved person" under Title VII because he was "well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII." Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, U.S. Supreme Court (January 24, 2011).

U.S. Supreme Court Approves Retaliation Claim By Fiance Of Complaining Employee

Franczek Radelet P.C • January 27, 2011
On January 24, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Thompson v. North American Stainless that an employee allegedly fired in retaliation for a sex discrimination charge filed by his fiance could sue his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

High Court Rules Workers May Sue For Third Party Retaliation Under Title VII

Ogletree Deakins • January 25, 2011
This morning, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing an opinion supported by eight justices, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee who was fired shortly after his fiance filed a bias charge against her employer may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for third-party retaliation. According to the high court, the employee could be considered an "aggrieved person" under Title VII because he was "well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII."

Supreme Court: "Employee Who Never Complained Of Discrimination May Bring Claim For Retaliation"

Fisher Phillips • January 25, 2011
On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling determined that an employee who does not directly engage in protected activity can still assert a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as a victim who falls within the "zone of interests" of protection afforded by the statute. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated "[w]e think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired." And further, that the employee "is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.

Retaliation in the Supreme Court - Danger Zone for Employers

Ogletree Deakins • January 25, 2011
If there is one area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that employees can certainly not complain about it is the law of retaliation Today's decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless (S.Ct. 1/24/11) certainly does nothing to change that. A unaminous Court (with Justice Kagan not sitting) held that an employee who had been fired for his fiancee's protected activty was also protected by Title VII.