Last year, in Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a claim under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision for associational retaliation: “Title VII prohibit[s] employers from taking retaliatory action against employees not directly involved in protected activity, but who are so closely related to or associated with” employees who engage in protected activity. (Emphasis added.)
I remain critical of this standard because it leaves open the issue of how close is close enough.
Recently, in Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., the same court was faced with another issue concerning the relationships between protected and unprotected employees.
In Barrett, the court decided that, in claims of associational discrimination—that is, where one employee claims discrimination because of a relationship with protected employees—the degree of “closeness” between the employees simply does not matter....(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Train managers: Sexual-Orientation comments are off limits
- Courts say, 'Enough!': Employees must file all related claims at same time
- Buffalo gas stations to pump $84K into employees' pockets
- Whine not? Tell chronic complainer to just move on when latest allegation proves false