“Zone of Interest” Concept Applied to Title VII Retaliation Claims
- By Your mom
- •
- 06 Feb, 2012
In a significant case issued last year, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the right to file
Title VII retaliation claims to employees, based on their relationship to other employees who
directly engaged in protected activity. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, Case No. 09-
291 (U.S. January 24, 2011). Historically, only employees who engaged in protected activity
were thought to have the right to file retaliation claims.
In this case, an employee, Miriam Regalado, filed a claim of sex discrimination against
her employer with the EEOC. Three weeks later her fiancé, Eric Thompson, was fired by the
same employer. Thompson brought a claim of retaliatory discharge under Title VII. The
company argued his termination was due to poor performance.
Title VII makes it illegal to retaliate against any employee who has opposed an unlawful
practice, or who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in a Title VII investigation,
proceeding or hearing. In reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court relied on its prior ruling
in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). In that case the
Court stated Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits any employer action that may
dissuade a reasonable worker from making, or supporting a charge of discrimination. The Court
went on to find that an employee with a legitimate claim might be dissuaded from engaging in
protected activity if she knew her fiancé would be fired. Therefore, Thompson’s discharge, if in
retaliation for his fiancées complaint, would violate the law.
It then turned to whether Thompson could bring suit in his own name for an act deemed
to be directed toward his fiancée for bringing her discrimination claim. The Court noted that
Title VII permits any person “aggrieved” by a Title VII violation to bring suit. Those who might
be “aggrieved” form a larger class than those who may have been directly “discriminated”
against. By virtue of his firing, Thompson was “aggrieved” and fell within the “zone of
interests” sought to be protected by the law. As such, he gained standing to bring suit.
The Court left open the question of which third party relationships fall within the “zone
of interest,” beyond stating “we expect that firing a close family member will almost always
meet the standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do
so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.”
This decision opens the door to a wider group of employees who may be able to bring a
retaliation charge, even if they did not directly file a of claim discrimination, or participate in any
investigation or protected activity.
Title VII retaliation claims to employees, based on their relationship to other employees who
directly engaged in protected activity. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, Case No. 09-
291 (U.S. January 24, 2011). Historically, only employees who engaged in protected activity
were thought to have the right to file retaliation claims.
In this case, an employee, Miriam Regalado, filed a claim of sex discrimination against
her employer with the EEOC. Three weeks later her fiancé, Eric Thompson, was fired by the
same employer. Thompson brought a claim of retaliatory discharge under Title VII. The
company argued his termination was due to poor performance.
Title VII makes it illegal to retaliate against any employee who has opposed an unlawful
practice, or who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in a Title VII investigation,
proceeding or hearing. In reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court relied on its prior ruling
in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). In that case the
Court stated Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits any employer action that may
dissuade a reasonable worker from making, or supporting a charge of discrimination. The Court
went on to find that an employee with a legitimate claim might be dissuaded from engaging in
protected activity if she knew her fiancé would be fired. Therefore, Thompson’s discharge, if in
retaliation for his fiancées complaint, would violate the law.
It then turned to whether Thompson could bring suit in his own name for an act deemed
to be directed toward his fiancée for bringing her discrimination claim. The Court noted that
Title VII permits any person “aggrieved” by a Title VII violation to bring suit. Those who might
be “aggrieved” form a larger class than those who may have been directly “discriminated”
against. By virtue of his firing, Thompson was “aggrieved” and fell within the “zone of
interests” sought to be protected by the law. As such, he gained standing to bring suit.
The Court left open the question of which third party relationships fall within the “zone
of interest,” beyond stating “we expect that firing a close family member will almost always
meet the standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do
so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.”
This decision opens the door to a wider group of employees who may be able to bring a
retaliation charge, even if they did not directly file a of claim discrimination, or participate in any
investigation or protected activity.
