Third Party Or Associational Retaliation Is Now Actionable Under Title VII


In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled recently that an employee who claims he was fired because his fiancée filed a sex discrimination charge against their mutual employer may pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII. Thompson v. North American Stainless (S.Ct. 1/24/11).

Justice Scalia wrote for the Court. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Kagan did not take part.

Reversing a federal appeals court ruling in favor of North American Stainless LP, the Supreme Court said it had “little difficulty concluding that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true, then [the company’s] firing of him violated Title VII.” The Court held that even though it was the plaintiff’s fiancée who filed the sex bias charge and not the plaintiff, he is still a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Title VII and therefore entitled to sue for retaliation

The Court’s ruling expands Title VII retaliation protection to persons who are closely associated with the individual who engaged in a protective activity, however, it is still uncertain how far the expansion extends. 

Judge Scalia noted this uncertainty, stating:

We must also decline to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. As we explained in Burlington,  “the significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances.” Given the broad statutory text and the variety of workplace contexts in which retaliation may occur, Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is simply not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules. We emphasize, however, that “the provision’s standard for judging harm must be objective,” so as to “avoi[d] the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.”

Interestingly, the Americans with Disabilities Act contains a specific provision for association type discrimination while Title VII does not. Thanks to the Supreme Court, however, this type of associational or third party retaliation is now actionable under both statutes. 

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top