The Thompson V. North American Stainless, L.P. is a landmark case that changed the retaliation charges against co-worker discrimination by the employee as retaliation over another worker’s action (Block, 2014). In the past, such cases were vaguely dismissed based on the assumption that the other worker would be blamed for putting the plaintiff under retaliating conditions. The Thompsons case is based on the retaliation claims made by Thompson, the petitioner against the North American Stainless (NAS), the respondent. Thompson made claims that he was fired as an illegal retaliation action by NAS, which was sued for sexual harassment by Thomspson’s fiancée, Miriam Regalado.
Some employees act under the legally defined retaliation incidences such as firing as in Thompsons case to punish the employee just because the employee engaged in a legally protection activity. All types of retaliation are prohibited by law when the employee files complaints in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that protects the employee under federal statutes (Woundy, 2010). The grounds for reporting harassment, discrimination and retaliation include aggravated employees out of the employers’ adverse actions and evidence of discrimination. In this case, Thompson was fired three weeks after his wife filed a sexual harassment suit against the company. An employee such as Thompson is fit to file suits against their former employer, in this case, NAS, because the employer’s adverse action rendered him aggravated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp
Facts of the case
Thompson, a former employee of the North American Stainless, Lp, was the petitioner while the North American Stainless (NAS) was the respondent (Block, 2014). Thomspon filed a suit of retaliation against the NAS based on the wrongful termination as a result of the fiancé filing a sexual harassment suit against NAS. Miriam Regalado, the third party, who is Thompson’s fiancé had filed a sex discrimination suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the respondent (NAS) in the past. Later, NAS proceeded to fire Thompson and he filed a charge of retaliation by the employee citing Title VI of the Civil rights Act. He made claims that NAS had fired him as a retaliation for the sexual harassment charges that his wife made against NAS (Woundy, 2010).
The District Court, however, granted a summary judgment to the respondent, NAS by citing third-party retaliation claims that were not served by Title VII. The Sixth Circuit therefore affirmed that Thompson did not fall under the specified categories under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and could therefore not sue his former employer NAS based on retaliation grounds (Lucas, 2016). If his fiancé had been fired after three weeks preceding the case of filing a suit against the company, the court would treat it as an illegal retaliation and proceed to offer a motion to continue with the case.
Thompson appealed and the Supreme Court held that if there was truth in the allegation of the unlawful retaliation of NAS, then the allegations are covered by the Title VII provisions (Strawbridge, 2011). The employer’s conduct as perceived by the employee therefore seems like discriminatory action and the petitioner therefore had reasonable grounds to file a case. However, under the same statute, the plaintiff’feelings towards the defendant may cause unfair disparities therefore affecting the motivation to tamper with the judicial effort that should be objective at all times.
The court also held that Thompson has a valid cause of action basing on Title VII (Strawbridge, 2011). He was an aggrieved person who followed the Administrative Procedure Act that authorizes people to challenge federal agencies if the person feels adversely affected by a company’s decision. Thompson does not fall under the category of protected persons such as the females, minority groups or the disabled but he is authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act to file the suit under the umbrella of this code (Strawbridge, 2011). The court also held that he, however, falls under the protection of the Title VII because he is an employee of NAS. NAS therefore had ill intent of punishing Thompson for the past actions of his wife who sued NAS for sexual harassment.
Finally the Supreme Court held that the alleged retaliation as claims by the petitioner, Thompson, were valid. The former employer, NAS fired him, an employee, who had a fiancé relationship with a person that had pursued legal protection against the same company in the past (Turner, 2013). The court therefore made an analysis that the anti-retaliation provisions of the Title VII should be broad enough to cover the broad range of employer conduct and prohibit employer action that dissuade a worker who is reasonable form supporting or making a discrimination charge.
Such a dissuaded action is the prevention of the worker in this case, Thompson from following a legal action against NAS, which might have discouraged the wife to engage in activities of filing charges to protect the fiancé against harassment or discrimination. The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the provisions of Title VII apply in this case because they protect and employee, the legal procedure on overbearing employees and counter retaliation efforts by NAS (Turner, 2013).
Legal issues
Retaliation by employers is a violation of the civil Rights Act of 1964 in the sixth title prohibits discrimination based on sex. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is tasked with the monitoring of compliance to the Civil Act of 1964 by limiting the class actions such as by sex (Turner, 2013). By firing Thompson after his wife charged the company with sexual harassment shows intentional discrimination based on a sexual harassment suit by the company. Thompson claimed that the company rejected him in a discriminatory manner after sexually harassing his wife. The Prima face case therefore involves disparate treatment in part of the employer where Thomson is a member of the protected class through the intention to punish him because of his fiancé actions.
After filing for appeals, the matter appeared in the Supreme Court. The facts of the case included the acknowledgement of the petitioner, Thompson and the fiancée Miriam Regalado, who are former employees of the NAS, which is the respondent (Underwood, 2012). The EEOC then notified NAS that a sex discrimination suit was filed by Regalado against NAS. Consequently, three weeks later, the husband, Thompson was fired and he too filed a charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. There were fruitless conciliation efforts that led to the Title VII Rights Act of 1964 suit that followed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Woundy, 2010).
Subjective analysis
From a subjective viewpoint, the intent to retaliation by the employee was substantial based on the short time span against the suit for sexual harassment by the fiancé Regalado. Three weeks period between the time Regalado filed for a suit and the firing of the husband seems like a causal and effect paradigm. Most retaliation incidences at the workplace involve adverse actions taken by the employer against an employee who filed a complaint earlier and happened to be related the petitioner, in this case, Thompson who was unfairly fired. In a subjective viewpoint, this seems like a punishment to the fiancé after his partner caused them serious damage by filing a serious suit such as sexual harassment.
Another issue is the employee complaints that are protected by laws that are used under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Title VI makes the case seem a bit complex because Thompson falls under the category of employer and therefore can use this clause to file a suit for retaliation that includes unfair practices by the employee. However, they do not fall under the gender, age disability or race disparities and therefore the clause cannot protect his right to complaint about being fired. The employee may have cited other reasons such as incompetency or inconsistent work but Thompson was already aggravated by the action of the employee to see it as an act of retaliation.
Another view that support Thompson’s viewpoint in filing for a suit is the prevalence of the plaintiff claiming discrimination based on a past act. In this sense the evil by the employer is viewed as an act of association. Thompson did not file the sexual harassment suit but is now suffering the consequences of his wife. Others might go further to argue that the some of the laws that exist to protect employees against retaliation by employers also work to protect the employers form retaliation by the employees. The retaliation suit by Thompson may be an employee retaliation after the sexual harassment incidence that his wife underwent in the past. By suing the company he may have the intension of making NAS pay for its past sins.
Discussion
Companies have always won cases that include retaliation charges that involve coworker factors because such cases never went past the dismissal stage. With the increase of cases that involve the retaliation of employees based on the relationship the worker had with an employee that took a legal action against the company in the past, there is as shift in focus. Through the use of third party appraisals, the Supreme Courts did not identify for courts or companies the types of relationships that the Title VII protected. The Thompson case included the Supreme Court issuing an opinion that the charge against the NAS for illegal retaliation was constituted under the Title VII (Underwood, 2012).
In the past anti-retaliation provisions did not cover third parties under the Title VII. Out of the Thompson case, the Supreme Court has established the precedent that has signbificant implications to employers and companies that are covered by the Title. These significantly include the federal corporations such as NAS.
The rising challenge however is the implementation of the new provisions under Title VII. Through the ambiguous description of the third party’s relationship with the person filing the suit, there is no clear definition of the reprisals (Underwood, 2012). The Supreme Court recognized these problems and offers the factual inquiry where there is a case by case evaluation. For instance, in the Thompsons case, there was a significant relationship between the two reasonable employees which was an engagement (Underwood, 2012). The relationship factor plays a crucial role in backing up the retaliation claims.
The second evidence includes the time factors between the time of suit for sexual harassment by the fiancé and the firing of Thompson. This period lasted for three weeks which on the part of the employer is a short span of time to fine probable causal factors that could make an employer fire a worker. There are regulations however that must be taken into account when finding the grounds to fire an employee with a notice period which was not enough for preparation. Another factor that contributes to the Supreme Court opinion is the gender factor of the fiancé who falls under the category of protected persons. The complaints of sexual harassment are therefore weighed at a grave manner because they affect persons directly affected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Woundy, 2010.
Therefore, the other courts have to breakdown the cases on an individual basis because they cannot transfer the application of opinions from one case to another. The different approaches are due to the different definitions in the category of relationships that exist among coworkers in the modern day (Wilson, 2011). People may be friends, neighbors, acquaintances, partners, lovers, fiancés, spouses or mentor of each other. In these different paradigms, retaliation cases based on third party reprisals need an evaluation on a case by case basis.
On the other hand, employees feel more protected by the federal and state laws that ensure that their rights are respected even when at their place of work. They will also stop fearing or shying away from expressing their relationships with the company, employers and colleagues because they are sure than whatever they do shall not affect their significant others.
Creative and ambitious plaintiff lawyers may however use this platform to capitalize on the court’s opinion and attempt to increase the out of court settlement (Wilson, 2011). This opportunity by mischievous lawyers can be used to leverage corporations to compensate them citing that they had some sort of relationship with the employee that seek protection from some company actions. Plaintiffs are therefore given more room for asserting such types of claims that are hard to defend against. It is now reverse as was in the past where the dismissal stage was almost probably. Today it is very challenging to get a dismissal or a summary judgment in an early stage of the litigation process.
Conclusion
The Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp case was therefore a retaliation case that shaped and marked the start of third party retaliation claims in the United States of America. The current employers and companies therefore observe more caution than in the past when dealing with employees because there is a broad opportunity for employees to find opportunities of making large sums of money. The employees therefore have drafted company policies that reduce the risk of litigation procedures such as prohibition of relationships at the workplace and a strict policy on giving notice to employees before firing them.
The plaintiff lawyers have also made new provisions of the Title VII as a playground to subject companies into filing out of court to avoid losing the case based on the challenging probabilities of dismissal or summary judgment. The lesson for employers and employees is that for one to be a leader, either as a company, owner or boss, they need to be responsible enough. They should treat their subjects fairly so that they may back up their argument for implementing adverse actions that may aggravate an employer or employee to file a suit or cite third party reprisal for an illegal retaliation.
References
Block, S. M. (2014). Invisible survivors: Female farmworkers in the United States and the systematic failure to report workplace harassment and abuse. Tex. J. Women, Gender & L. , 24 , 127.
Lucas, K. E. (2016). How Close Is Close Enough? Examining the Relationships in Title VII Third Party Retaliation Claims. Labor Law Journal , 67 (3), 445.
Strawbridge, D. D. (2011). Thy Fiance Doth Protest Too Much: Third-Party Retaliation Under Title VII After Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP. Mercer L. Rev. , 63 , 767
Turner, R. (2013). Title VII, the Third-Party Retaliation Issue, and the Plain Language Mirage. Ala. CR & CLL Rev. , 5 , 77.
Underwood, B. (2012). Tread Lightly: Third-Party Retaliation Claims After Thompson v. North American Stainless. J. Corp. L. , 38 , 463.
Wilson, L. (2011). Recent Developments in Fifth Circuit Employment Law. Tex. Tech L. Rev. , 44 , 66
Woundy, L. M. (2010). No Protection for Fiancés Under Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP: How the Sixth Circuit Wrongly Denied Third-Party Retaliation Claims Under Title VII. New Eng. L. Rev. , 45 , 283.
