Alert
Close

New! Boost your memory with AARP Brain Fitness. Try these fun exercises proven more effective than crosswords

AARP Membership: Just $16 a Year

Highlights

Open

Dunkin' Donuts

Members receive a Donut with purchase of a L or XL beverage

Social Security Calculator

What will your Social Security benefits pay out?

Savings Icon

Tanger Outlets

Access to a free coupon book

Technical Icon

Spanish Preferred?

Visit aarp.org/espanol

Job Tips for Workers 50+

Hear insights from hiring employers

Contests and
Sweeps

You Could Win $50,000!

Plus you’ll get free tips and tools to help you find your perfect path to retirement
See official rules.

Today's
news

Most Popular
Articles

Viewed

Recommended

Commented

U.S. Supreme Court 2010-11

Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP: A Case About Job Discrimination

Security of workers' friends and family may be at stake

  • Text
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Recommend

Can a company legally retaliate against an employee’s friends, relatives or spouse because the employee filed a discrimination claim? That issue lies at the heart of Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP. The case was brought by Eric Thompson, who was fired from his job as a metallurgical engineer in 2003 three weeks after his employer learned that Miriam Regalado, his co-worker and then-fiancée (they’re now married), had filed a sex discrimination claim against the company. Lower courts ruled that she was protected from retaliation, but he was not.

What’s at stake. As in this term's Staub v. Proctor Hospital case, the Court’s decision is certain to apply to other federal antidiscrimination laws. Age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have been rising for the past several years and hit an all-time high of 24,582 in fiscal 2008. Complaints about other forms of discrimination have also been on the rise.

Where AARP stands. AARP, siding with Thompson, argues that “third-party employees must be permitted to file claims to redress their own injuries.”

How the Court Ruled

In a unanimous decision issued on Jan. 24, the Court sided with Thompson, holding that the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act extend to those who claim third-party retaliation.

"We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in delivering the Court's opinion (PDF).

The Court said that its decision would almost always apply to "a close family member" but probably not to "a mere acquaintance."

Next: Is a parent company liable for its subsidiary's violations?

Topic Alerts

You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click “Follow.”

Manage Alerts

Processing

Please wait...

progress bar, please wait

washington watch

AARP Advocacy

Discounts & Benefits

From companies that meet the high standards of service and quality set by AARP.

financial products

Member access to financial and insurance products and services at AARPfinancial.com.

Grandson (8-9) whispering to grandfather, close-up

Members save on hearing care with the AARP® Hearing Care Program provided by HearUSA.

AARP Discounts on Consumer Cellular Phones and Plans

Members save 5% on monthly service and usage charges with Consumer Cellular.

Member Benefits

Members receive exclusive member benefits & affect social change. Join Today

Featured
Groups

Politics — Current Events

Speak out on the issues and controversies of the day. Discuss

Issues & Elections

Civil, bipartisan discussions of today's issues and topics of national interest. Discuss