Thompson V North American Drainless Summary

Analysis The facts in the case of Thompson V North American Stainless, LP 562 U.S._ (2011) are fairly straightforward. The petitioner in this case, Eric Thompson, was seemingly fired from his job at North American Stainless (NAS) because his fiancée, Miriam Regalado filed a sexual discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). His suit was filed under Title VII claiming that his dismissal was retaliation for his fiancée’s charge. (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Shedd, n.d.) The difficult part of this case to determine is whether Thompson’s suit is covered within Title VII. Initially, the District Court ruled that Title VII “does not permit third party retaliation claims”. But if the termination of Thompson’s employment was a retaliatory act for the charge filed by his fiancée, Shouldn’t Thompson be protected? Another question to ask is, “Would Regalado have filed the charge if she knew it would have gotten her fiancé fired?” The issue in this
It was determined by the court that Title VII is ultimately in place to protect employees from employers. Thompson needed to be protected in this instance. He was wrongfully terminated because of his direct relationship with his fiancée. His relationship “falls within the ‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint.” The court determined that NAS committed an unlawful act to intentionally hurt him. Their intent was retaliatory for Relegado’s charge. Thompson was eventually determined to be “a person aggrieved with standing to sue.” (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Shedd,