美国联邦法院判决.pdfVIP

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus THOMPSON v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 09–291. Argued December 7, 2010—Decided January 24, 2011 After petitioner Thompson’s fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a sex dis­ crimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­ mission (EEOC) against their employer, respondent North American Stainless (NAS), NAS fired Thompson. He filed his own charge and a subsequent suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that NAS fired him to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge. The District Court granted NAS summary judgment on the ground that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted by Title VII, which prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has made a [Title VII] charge,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), and which per­ mits, inter alia, a “person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by [an] alleged employment practice” to file a civil action, §2000e–5(f)( 1). The en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Thompson was not enti­ tled to sue NAS for retaliation because he had