Originally published June 29, 2010

Keywords: Civil Rights Act 1964, anti-retaliation, Thompson v. North American Stainless, EEOC, discrimination, Bayh-Dole Act, invention,

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—Retaliation Claims

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), makes it illegal to retaliate against an employee for (a) opposing an unlawful employment practice or (b) participating in an investigation of, or proceedings against, an employer under the Act. The Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, to determine whether Title VII's anti-retaliation provision protects an individual who suffers retaliation based solely upon that individual's association with an employee who has engaged in protected activities.

Thompson is significant for all employers subject to Title VII because its resolution will define the universe of individuals protected by Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. If the Court rules that it covers individuals who have not themselves engaged in protected activity, employers may be subject to an increased range of potential claims and liability.

The case arose from the firing of an employee three weeks after his fiancée filed a charge with the EEOC against the couple's mutual employer for gender discrimination. The plaintiff claimed that the only motivating factor for his termination was his fiancée's charge against their mutual employer. The Sixth Circuit, in an en banc ruling, joined the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits in rejecting such third-party retaliation claims. It held that the plain language of the anti-retaliation provision limited the class of persons who may sue to those personally engaged in protected activity. Six dissenting judges, however, rejected what they considered to be the majority's overly narrow reading of the statute, arguing in part that recent Supreme Court precedent requires a broad interpretation of statutes designed to protect employees from retaliation.

For the third time in two days, the Court granted review despite the recommendation of the Solicitor General that certiorari be denied.

Absent extensions, which are likely, amicus briefs in support of the petitioner will be due on August 20, 2010, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent will be due on September 20, 2010.

* * * * * * * * * *

Yesterday, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in the following case of interest to the business community:

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 09-1159: The question presented is whether a federal contractor university's statutory right under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212, in inventions arising from federally funded research can be terminated unilaterally by an individual inventor through a separate agreement purporting to assign the inventor's rights to a third party.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net.

Copyright 2010. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, Mayer Brown JSM and/or Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.