Font Size:

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken an about-face on its position regarding retaliation by association in the workplace.

On June 5, the federal appeals court ruled en banc that relatives and associates of those who file workplace lawsuits or complaints are not protected by retaliation laws. The ruling in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP involved a Kentucky engineer who claimed he was fired from North American Stainless because his fiancée -- who also worked there -- had filed a gender discrimination complaint against the company, so the employer fired him to get back at her.

In March 2008, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit agreed with the retaliation-by-association argument. But in the latest en banc hearing, the full court found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't go that far, and that people cannot bring claims for retaliation unless it is they, themselves, who have engaged in the protected activity.

The court stated: "[W]e join the Third, Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal in holding that the authorized class of claimants is limited to persons who have personally engaged in protected activity by opposing a practice, making a charge, or assisting or participating in an investigation. Because plaintiff Eric L. Thompson does not claim that he personally engaged in any protected activity, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant."

The ruling comes as a huge boost to management-side lawyers, who had feared the old ruling would trigger a slew of lawsuits by third parties.

"It created a real mess for employers that thankfully the en banc panel fixed" said management-side attorney Jon Hyman of Cleveland-based Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, who blogs about retaliation in the workplace. "There are enough legal mines for employers to step in in trying to guard against what has become one of the most difficult workplace issues for employers -- retaliation. Thankfully, the 6th Circuit did the right thing and removed another legal pitfall for employers."

Hyman heavily criticized the initial 6th Circuit ruling, arguing it would force employers to litigate against not just "every John Doe who is fired and claims that he engaged in some kind of protected activity," but against all his friends and family who work in the same workplace.

But those friends and family members deserve retaliation protection, too, countered Dennis Janes, of Louisville, Ky.'s Segal Lindsay & Janes, whose firm represented the plaintiff in the 6th Circuit case.

Janes fears the ruling will now allow employers to strike back at employees who file complaints by taking it out on their friends or family.

"It's regrettable and certainly allows employers to inflict some pretty serious harm on employees and get away with it as long as they can find a family member [related to the complainant]," Janes said.

In his case, Janes alleged, the employer opted against retaliating against the female employee who actually filed the discrimination complaint because "striking back at her would look bad."

"So they looked someplace else to retaliate against her, and they looked at her fiancé, who happened to work at the same place," said Janes, who is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but has to discuss it with his client, first. "I have gotten a shocking number of calls from people around the country who all seem fascinated by this subject, so I assume there must be widespread concern about it."

Janes said he was surprised by the latest ruling, which was in stark contrast to the first one, in which the court held: "Other courts have expressed concerns as to whether this decision will result in a flood of suits from relatives and associates of those who file [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] charges....Of greater concern to the court would be the result of a contrary ruling. That is, permitting employers to retaliate with impunity for opposition to unlawful practices, filing EEOC charges or otherwise participating in such efforts, as long as that retaliation is only directed at family members and friends, and not the individual conducting the protected activity."

Leigh G. Latherow of VanAntwerp, Monge, Jones, Edwards & McCann in Ashland, Ky., who represented the employer in the 6th Circuit case, was unavailable for comment.

In April 2008, she told The National Law Journal that the initial 6th Circuit ruling could "open the floodgates of litigation." According to Latherow, the 6th Circuit ruling created a split among the circuits on the subject of retaliation-by-association. She said the 3rd, 5th and 8th circuits all have struck down third-party retaliation claims.

The 7th and 11th circuits, meanwhile, have concluded that third parties are entitled to protection from retaliation.

Subscribe to The National Law Journal