## Facts

- Eric L. Thompson and Miriam Regalado worked for North American Stainless, LP (NAS) at a Kentucky facility.
- In September 2002, Regalado filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination by NAS.
- On February 13, 2003, the EEOC notified NAS of Regalado’s charge.
- Slightly more than three weeks later, NAS terminated Thompson’s employment.
- Thompson filed an EEOC charge and then brought a Title VII action alleging NAS fired him to retaliate for Regalado’s protected activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment to NAS, holding Title VII does not allow third-party retaliation claims where the plaintiff did not personally engage in protected activity.
- The Sixth Circuit (en banc) affirmed on the same rationale.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is violated when an employer fires an employee because the employee’s fiancée filed an EEOC charge.
2. Whether the fired employee is a “person claiming to be aggrieved” authorized to sue under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- Assuming Thompson’s allegations are true, firing him because of Regalado’s EEOC charge constituted unlawful retaliation under Title VII.
- Thompson was authorized to sue because he was a “person claiming to be aggrieved” within Title VII’s zone of interests and directly harmed by the alleged unlawful employment practice.
- The Court declined to adopt a categorical rule defining which relationships always support third-party retaliation claims; the inquiry turns on application of the objective standard for materially adverse actions.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision covers employer actions that would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge.
- Retaliation may be actionable even when directed at someone other than the person who engaged in protected activity, if the employer’s action would deter a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity.
- Title VII’s authorization of suit by a “person claiming to be aggrieved” is narrower than Article III standing and is governed by a zone-of-interests test.
- A plaintiff is within the zone of interests when the plaintiff’s interests are not marginal to or inconsistent with Title VII’s purposes and the plaintiff was directly harmed by the alleged unlawful employment practice.
- An employee allegedly targeted as the intended means of punishing another employee’s protected activity falls within Title VII’s protected zone of interests and may sue for retaliation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII can prohibit third-party retaliation such as firing a complainant’s fiancée when the action would deter a reasonable worker from complaining, and it permitted the fired employee to sue because he was within the statute’s zone of interests as a directly harmed employee.


Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011)