In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that when an employee files a discrimination complaint, not only that employee is protected from retaliation. Close relations -- in this case, the employee's fiancé who was a co-worker -- also have the right to be free from harassment and retaliation, and may have standing to bring their own claims.

The EEOC brought the case on behalf of a Kentucky man whose employer, North American Stainless (NAS), fired him three weeks after it received notice that his fiancée, a co-worker, had filed a gender discrimination complaint against the company.

The EEOC has long interpreted the anti-retaliation provisions in our federal workplace discrimination laws to prohibit third-party reprisals in retaliation for an employee having filed a complaint.

However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had both ruled that the woman's fiancé could not file a retaliation claim because he was not the person who brought the original discrimination complaint which had brought about the retaliation. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has rejected the lower courts' reasoning and upheld the interpretation of the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Protects Employees Against Third-Party Reprisals

The woman in the case was a supervisor for NAS, and her fiancé was a metallurgical engineer at the same company. After some time, the woman filed an EEOC complaint against NAS, alleging gender discrimination and violations of the Equal Pay Act.

After it received notice of the woman's claim, NAS fired her fiancé. He, in turn, filed a wrongful termination complaint against the company, alleging that it had fired him in retaliation for his fiancée's discrimination complaint.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits employer retaliation against employees who file discrimination complaints. The question in this case was whether the law also prohibits employers from retaliating against a complaining employee by taking it out on other employees. The Supreme Court unanimously said that it does.

"[A]ccepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation-collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer's unlawful act," writes Justice Antonin Scalia for the Court.

"To the contrary, injuring him was the employer's intended means of harming [the female supervisor]. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her."

Furthermore, the Court reasoned, an employer's retaliation through third parties could be an illegal act of intimidation. Employers are prohibited from taking actions meant to intimidate workers from protecting their legal rights.

"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," writes Scalia.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that there are limits to who can bring a third-party reprisal claim. Justice Scalia was reluctant to generalize but suggested that each situation would have to be considered separately, based on the circumstances and their significance.

The case has been sent back to the lower courts for trial or pre-litigation settlement.

Sources: