Eric L. Thompson Petitioner v. North American Stainless, LP

Diana Perez
Professor Patricia Via
Business Law
31 October 2018
Eric L. Thompson Petitioner v. North American Stainless, LP
Eric Thompson and wife Miriam Regalado were former employees of the North American Stainless also known as NAS. During the time of their employment, Regalado had filed charges with EEOC against the owners of the company alleging they were discriminating against her because she is a woman. Once these allegations were starting, the company’s reputation began to fall, and later on fired Regalado’s husband, Thompson. It was an unexpected termination, which then led Thompson to filing charges with the EEOC against the company as well. Thompson then figured that EEOC wasn’t giving him the right consultation and didn’t achieve the goals he was expecting too. Afterward, Thompson took these charges to the District Court of Kentucky. The allegations that Thompson filed were under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that states “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees because he has made a charge” (Supreme Court, 1). Therefore, the company itself was not fair to Thompson. He was not there at the time of his wife’s allegations.
The District Court had granted NAS complete judgment, and notified Thompson that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, “it does not permit the third party retaliation claims” (Supreme Court, 1) which led Thompson to taking his case to the Court of Appeals of the Six Circuit, and got a 10 to 6 vote from the Jury. Therefore, the Court of Appeals argued that because Thompson “did not engage in any statutorily protected activity, either on his behalf or behalf of Miriam Regalado,” he” is not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created retaliation cause of action” (Supreme Court, 1). It was accepted that Regalado’s charges were protected under Title VII and with the EEOC. In this case in Regalado’s stance was undisputed with the EEOC.
There were two questions before the court were: Does an employer violate an anti-retaliation provision of a federal civil rights statute by firing the fiancée of the employee who complained about discrimination? Can the fired employee sue, or only the employee who filed the complaint? (Supreme Court, 1)
Regarding the first question, the Justices held that the antiretaliation provision of Title VII” is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” But rather “prohibits employers from engaging in acts that dissuade workers from making or ...