Court Rules Company Retaliated By Firing Fiance.

[elleng]

Source: NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court has expanded protections for employees who file discrimination claims under federal law. By a unanimous vote, the court ruled that not only are workers themselves protected from retaliation when they file such claims, so too are their family members and close relations, such as a fiance.



Read more: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133187989/Court-Upholds-Law-Barring-Retaliation-In-Firing

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Unanimous court, and Scalia wrote the decision

That surprises me.

[WheelWalker]

3. Watch for Hell to freeze over. nt

[JNelson6563]

11. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

[unblock]

2. this does not apply, i'm sure, to a committed homosexual partner of many years.

i haven't read the opinion, but if tony carved out a "special protection" for homosexual partners, i'd faint here and now.

[spooky3]

5. in the NPR summary, it sounded to me as if it would

They said mild retaliation against a mere acquaintance wouldn't meet the standard but firing a close relative or friend would, IIRC. This would be much closer to the latter than the former.

Scalia and his merry band might vote against it but Anthony Kennedy would probably make it at least a 5-4.

[unblock]

8. by any reasonable reckoning, sure, but this is scalia we're talking about.

i'm sure he could concoct some "intellectual" argument why a long-standing homosexual relationship is somehow not a "close relative or friend" or anything of consequence, but a mere crazed and sinful perverted sex partner.

but you're right, you never know about kennedy. on rare occassions he seems almost reasonable. scary that such a conservative justice is a swing vote.

[spooky3]

12. agree - although I have to say I am surprised Scalia et al. didn't do

that (concoct a bizarre explanation as to why firing/negative employment consequences involving anyone other than the person who filed the original protected complaint couldn't possibly constitute retaliation against that person regardless of the circumstances) in the present decision. They have done similar things so many times before.

[spooky3]

4. sort of like Joe Wilson's and Valerie Plame's case, isn't it?

Anyway, I am pleasantly surprised to see that the Neanderthal wing was reasonable on this one.

[mindwalker_i]

6. The company had a fiancee?

And they fired her?

[msanthrope]

9. Amazingly bad headline writers, eh? n/t

[naaman fletcher]

10. I was thinking the same thing,

and it got me to click on the link in order to find out what the headline was talking about, so maybe the bad headline was actually done on purpose to generate clicks? ya never know.

[happyslug]

7. Here is the Actual Opinion, if anyone wants to read it

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-291.pdf

The key paragraph, in my opinion, is as follows:

Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin“‘with respect to . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’” and discriminatory practices that would “‘deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.’” Id., at 62 (quoting 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a) (emphasis deleted)). In contrast, Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits an employer from “‘discriminating against any of his employees’” for engaging in protected conduct, without specifying the employer acts that are prohibited. 548 U. S., at 62 (quoting §2000e–3(a) (emphasis deleted)). Based on this textual distinction and our understanding of the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose, we held that “the anti-retaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Id., at 64. Rather, Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id., at 68 (internal quotation marks omitted).