美国联邦法院判决

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010

Syllabus 1

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

THOMPSON v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–291. Argued December 7, 2010—Decided January 24, 2011 After petitioner Thompson’s fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a sex dis­crimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mission (EEOC) against their employer, respondent North American Stainless (NAS), NAS fired Thompson. He filed his own charge and asubsequent suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming thatNAS fired him to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge. The District Court granted NAS summary judgment on the ground that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted by Title VII,which prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has made a [Title VII] charge,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), and which per­mits, inter alia, a “person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by [an] allegedemployment practice” to file a civil action, §2000e–5(f)(1). The en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Thompson was not enti­tled to sue NAS for retaliation because he had not engaged in any ac­tivity protected by the statute.

Held: 1. If the facts Thompson alleges are true, his firing by NAS consti­tuted unlawful retaliation. Title VII’s antiretaliation provision mustbe construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53. It prohibits any employer ac­‘well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from tion that “

’” id., at 68. That making or supporting a [discrimination] charge,” test must be applied in an objective fashion, to “avoi[d] the uncertain­ties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to de­

termine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.” Id., at 68–69. A reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Pp. 2–4.

2. Title VII grants Thompson a cause of action. Pp. 4–7.

第1页下一页