Unanimous Supreme Court Broadens Title VII Retaliation Protections (3/11)

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) permits third-party retaliation claims.  In this case, Thompson v. North American Stainless, 131 S. Ct. 863 (January 24, 2011), an employee filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against her employer alleging sex discrimination.  Three weeks later, her fiance was terminated from employment with the same company.  The fiance filed suit against the employer alleging his termination was in retaliation for his fiancee’s EEOC complaint.         Title VII prohibits employers from, among other things, retaliating against employees for opposing any practice prohibited by Title VII.  The lower courts had determined that the employee’s situation did not fall under the Title VII protections.  They ruled that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted under Title VII.  According to those courts, Title VII protects from retaliation those employees who have filed claims alleging discrimination and also permits suits by a person who claims to have been “aggrieved” by an unlawful employment practice.  Therefore, the male fiance could not file a retaliation claims since he had not engaged in any activity protected by Title VII.      The Supreme Court disagreed and determined that Title VII must be interpreted broadly to cover a broad range of employer conduct and prohibits any employer action that might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a [discrimination] charge.”  According to the Court, “a reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiance would be fired.”  The Court went on to determine that the male fiance fell within the “zones of interests” protected by Title VII and was not an “accidental victim” of retaliation, but rather “injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming” the female employee.       Unfortunately, however, the Court did not provide concrete guidance to employers on which third parties could file retaliation claims.  It specifically declined “to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful,” and so leaves that issue for other courts to interpret.  According to the Court, “We expect that firing a close family member will almost always” meet the retaliation standard, and “inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.”      Retaliation claims are an increasing problem for employers.  Recent enforcement statistics from the EEOC show that retaliation claims for fiscal year (FY) 2010 account for over 36% of claims filed, and accounted for the highest number of discrimination claims filed.  So what can you do to prevent retaliation claims in your workplace?  Your most potent weapon is to implement and enforce clear “no retaliation” policies so that managers and coworkers understand the seriousness of the issue.  For example, harassment, equal employment opportunity, and complaint policies should state plainly that you prohibit retaliation against employees who make complaints or provide information about discrimination or other protected activity.  In addition, you should train managers to recognize and avoid actions that could be interpreted as retaliatory.