Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
131 S. Ct. 863
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Regalado filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination; NAS terminated Thompson three weeks later.
- Thompson then filed an EEOC charge and sued NAS under Title VII for retaliation against Regalado.
- District court granted summary judgment for NAS; Sixth Circuit reversed and then affirmed en banc for Thompson.
- Court assumed NAS fired Thompson to retaliate against Regalado; issues: whether retaliation occurred and whether Thompson may sue.
- Court held retaliation occurred under Burlington Northern, and Thompson falls within Title VII's aggrieved class to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did NAS retaliate against Thompson under Title VII? | Thompson | NAS | Yes, retaliation established |
| Whether Thompson may sue under Title VII for retaliation? | Thompson | NAS | Thompson may sue |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (antiretaliation broadly protects actions beyond terms/conditions of employment)
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (standing broadly construed under Article III for Title VIII)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (zone-of-interests test for standing)
- National Credit Union Administration v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479 (U.S. 1998) (zone-of-interests concept applied to standing)
- Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388 (U.S. 1987) (zone-of-interests anchored in statutory purpose)
- Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (duplicate entry for clarity), 409 U. S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (referred to for aggrievement interpretation under Title VII)