The U. S. Supreme Court on Monday issued its opinion in Thompson v. NAS. While not a constitutional case, it could have ramifications across the nation in employment relations. The case focuses on some arcane issues of standing and civil procedure, but in the end confirms a right to sue that had previously been in dispute.
Here are the underlying facts. Miriam Regalado and her fiancee, Eric Thompson, worked for North American Stainless (NAS). Regalado filed an EEOC complaint against NAS alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later NAS fired Thompson. Thompson brought suit claiming that his firing was in retaliation for Regalado having filed the EEOC complaint.
The U. S. District Court in Kentucky threw out Thompson’s suit asserting that Title VII did not permit third party claims. In other words, since Thompson was not the one allegedly discriminated against, he could not sue even if NAS intended to retaliate against Regalado by firing her fiancee. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc 10-6 decision, agreed with the District Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the process the Court recognized the right of third parties, who are closely enough related, to sue for retaliatory termination related to an EEOC claim filed by another employee. It held that Thompson was an “aggrieved party” within the meaning of Title VII.
Beyond the actual ruling of the case, Thompson v. NAS raises some interesting observations and questions. This is a case where the current Court ruled in favor of an individual having standing to sue a corporation. This seems to fly against the generally restrictive view of this subject expressed in the Ledbetter case. Some questions. Is the Court reflecting sensitivity to criticism over its Ledbetter decision? Is the Court showing sensitivity to the more generic criticism that it is perceived as pro-corporation and anti-individual?
The decision was 8-0. Kagan, who had been Solicitor General when this EEOC claim came through the court system, did not participate. Six joined in the main opinion written by Scalia. Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion in which Breyer joined.
For those interested in legal decision reading, this case offers an example of something I mentioned in my January 13 piece How To Read A Legal Opinion, distinguishing between dicta and the holding of a case. In particular, the holding of a case is binding precedent. Dicta, related but unnecessary discussion, is not. The main opinion in Thompson v. NAS illustrates how weak dicta is as authority in subsequent cases.
“…as to that we are surely not bound by the Trafficante dictum.
We now find that this dictum was ill-considered, and we decline to follow it.”
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.