Sixth Circuit Extends Title VII Coverage To Friends And Relatives

Recently, Tennessee's federal appellate court, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, relied on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Compliance Manual to support its extension of the antiretaliation provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect someone related to or associated with an employee. Let's take a closer look at the case.

Facts

The employee in this case worked as an engineer for North American Stainless, LP. His fiance, who also worked for the company, filed a charge with the EEOC alleging it discriminated against her because of her gender. Three weeks later, the employer terminated the employee ― not his fiance ― for performance-based reasons.

The employee filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging retaliation. The agency issued a finding against the employer. The parties then attempted to conciliate but were unsuccessful, and the EEOC issued the employee a right-to-sue letter. After the trial court dismissed his claims in favor of the employer, the employee appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Court's Holding

The employee argued that Title VII's antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from terminating someone based on the protected activity of his fiance who works for the same company. The EEOC also weighed in, filing a brief in support of the employee's position.

The Sixth Circuit held that the antiretaliation provision of Title VII does prohibit an employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee not directly involved in protected activity but so closely related to or associated with someone who is directly involved that it's clear the protected activity motivated the employer's action.

The court declined to apply the literal reading of the antiretaliation provision, acknowledging that it would limit employer retaliation to the person participating in the protected activity. The court stated that such a reading defeats the plain purpose of Title VII ― to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee's efforts to secure or advance the enforcement of the law's guarantees. The court then pointed to language in the EEOC Compliance Manual expressly stating that Title VII prohibits retaliation against someone so closely related to or associated with the person exercising her statutory rights that it would discourage that person from pursuing those rights.

The court attempted to dispel "floodgate" concerns by relying on similar or related cases in which courts went beyond the literal reading of a statute to extend discrimination lawsuits to include bias based on association with or relation to someone in a protected class. The court noted that the doors were already opened by the Sixth Circuit in 1993, and very few cases asserting similar claims have arisen. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP,2008 WL 834005.

Bottom Line

In this opinion, the Sixth Circuit made clear that the purpose of Title VII outweighs the literal reading of its language. Employers should interpret the decision to mean that indirect retaliation against the protected employee by punishing his lunch buddy, relative, or perhaps a work acquaintance will not be tolerated.

Who's considered a friend or associate for purposes of retaliation hasn't been defined and apparently can only be defined by the employee participating in the protected activity and the third-party victim of retaliation. Perhaps this is a good time to revisit whether you will administer and enforce your antinepotism and antifraternization policies to avoid the floodgates of "me, too" litigation stemming from someone else's participation in a protected activity.

This article is posted with permission from Tennessee Employment Law Letter, which is published by M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. For more information, go to <www.hrhero.com.