Thompson v. North American Stainless

Thompson v. North American Stainless is a famous Supreme Court decision on wrongful
termination. Eric Thompson and his fiancée Miriam Regalado were both employed by North
American Stainless. In the year 2002, Miriam filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and alleged that she was sexually discriminated against and
harassed by her supervisors. In February 2003, EEOC notified North American Stainless that a
complaint had been lodged by Miriam (Findlaw, n.d.). North American Stainless fired Thompson
three weeks later. Thompson lodged a complaint alleging that he was fired by North American
Stainless in retaliation for the complaint filed by his fiancée. Thompson built his case on Section
704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that states that employers cannot discriminate against
employees who have filed a complaint (Legal Information Institute, 2021). Conciliation efforts
were unsuccessful, and this resulted in the case escalating to the United States District Court.
At the District Court, the judge stated that Title VII does not permit retaliation claims that
are done on behalf of third parties. The District Court thus dismissed the case since it was a
third-party retaliation claim and, in the opinion of the court, that was not permitted in the law.
The case was escalated to the Court of Appeal, where the appellate court affirmed the ruling of
the lower court (Legal Information Institute, 2021). An appeal was lodged at the United States
Supreme Court. At the United States Supreme Court, the court held that Title VII’s
antiretaliation provision extends to a broad range of conduct by the employer. It bars employers
from taking actions that would be seen by every reasonable employee as retaliation for a

complaint that has been filed. A reasonable worker would feel dissuaded from filing a complaint
if such an action results in the firing of their fiancée.
The court went further to state that Title VII provides Thompson with a reasonable cause
of action. In interpreting the person aggrieved, the court mentioned that the individual who is the
recipient of retaliation qualifies to be the person aggrieved. Thompson was an employee of North
American Stainless. Title VII seeks to ensure that the interests of employees are protected (Legal
Information Institute, 2021). As a result, Thompson’s interests ought to be protected against his
employer North American Stainless. In firing him, North American Stainless aimed to punish
Miriam indirectly. The Supreme Court thus reversed the judgement of the District Court.

Errors Made by the Management and Corrective Action
The management made the error of wrongfully terminating Thompson as well as
retaliating against the discrimination complaint filed by Miriam. An employee cannot be
punished for filing a complaint against the employer. Employees have a right to assert their
rights against all forms of discrimination and harassment (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 2020). This is a protected activity, and the management cannot take retaliatory
actions against employees who speak against such. In addition, the management made the error
of failing to guarantee a safe workplace free from all forms of discrimination and harassment.
The allegations brought forward by Miriam were substantive in nature and warranted
investigations by the EEOC. The company had thus failed in its core role of having a safe
workplace.
One of the main corrective actions that North American Stainless should have taken is to
ensure that the environment is free of any form of discrimination. Gender-based discrimination is

a serious issue that affects organizations (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
2020). An environment that encourages sexual discrimination is likely to result in legal actions
being taken against a company. Employees in an organization expect fair, equal, and considerate
treatment from their employers. Employees should not be unfairly disadvantaged because of
their gender (Walsh, 2016). North American Stainless should thus have come up with strong
policies against gender discrimination. The company should have put in place policies that are
fair to both genders as well as protected all employees against all forms of discrimination. No
gender should be disadvantaged in the workplace. In addition, the company should have a policy
that enables employees to make reports on sexual harassment as well as enable the management
to take appropriate action. If mediation was available, North American Stainless should have
sought that route and ensure that the case was resolved confidentially at no extra cost.
The company should have avoided taking action to victimize Thompson and should have
instead worked towards cooperating with EEOC in the completion of the investigations. When a
charge is launched with the EEOC, the organization is notified within ten days. The EEOC then
gives the respondents access to a portal where they can receive relevant information relating to
the charge (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2020). The EEOC has the power
to conduct investigations and make resolutions either through mediation or settlement. The
EEOC informs the organization whether or not the charge is open for mediation. The
organization is then asked to provide the relevant information that facilitates the investigation
process (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2020). An evaluator appointed by
EEOC will evaluate the evidence and then make a decision on whether or not unlawful
discrimination has occurred. North American Stainless should also have protected Miriam and

Thompson against all forms of retaliation. Miriam should not have been punished directly or
indirectly. Retaliation is illegal. An organization should seek to ensure that it does not happen.
Written Policy Statement to be submitted to the Management for Approval
North American Stainless is committed to the elimination of all forms of sexual
harassment. North American Stainless has zero tolerance against all forms of sexual harassment
and is committed to ensuring that employees feel safe. The organization is committed to creating
a safe and secure workplace where employees can be productive. The company will treat all
cases of sexual harassment seriously, and employees who are found to be violating this policy
will face severe disciplinary action, which includes immediate termination from employment.
Employees who launch sexual harassment or discrimination can expect that their cases will be
handled on merit and will be treated in confidence. Employees will not be victimized for making
sexual harassment or discrimination complaints.
Definition of Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a broad concept that includes conduct that is sexual in nature.
Sexual harassment includes all forms of unwelcome gestures that are of a sexual nature and
make individuals feel intimidated or humiliated. Sexual harassment and discrimination can
broadly be classified into three actions, namely nonverbal conduct, verbal conduct, and physical
conduct.
Physical Conduct
The company will not tolerate physical conduct that creates a hostile work environment
or humiliates the recipient. Such actions include but are not limited to physical violence, physical
contact, and threats aimed at the solicitation of sexual favors.

Verbal Conduct
The company encourages employees to adopt proper verbal conduct and avoid comments
that could be construed to amount to sexual harassment. Insults that revolve around the gender of
the worker, comments that are condescending, sexual advances, jokes on the sex of the
employee, as well as comments on the appearance of the employee are not condoned in the
workplace. Phone communications should also be kept formal, and sexually explicit messages
should be avoided.
Non-verbal Conduct
Displaying sexually suggestive gestures as well as leering is not condoned in the
workplace. The company aims at ensuring that all employees are empowered to speak against
nonverbal conduct that is intimidating and makes them feel harassed.
Anyone can be a victim of sexual harassment and discrimination. Sexual harassment and
discrimination could be the result of unequal relationships. These relationships include the
relationship between managers and employees. North American Stainless aims to empower
junior employees to stand up against all forms of sexual discrimination and harassment that may
stem from the supervisors. All employees of North American Stainless, including supervisors
and senior members of the management, are required to shun away from all forms of sexual
harassment and discrimination. The company has put in place an elaborate procedure that should
be followed by all employees to ensure who are sexually harassed or discriminated against on the
basis of their gender make reports and appropriate actions taken. The following is the procedure
for reporting sexual harassment incidences for action to be taken.
Procedure for Reporting Sexual Harassment Incidences

Any employee who feels that they are sexually harassed is encouraged to inform the
perpetrator that the conduct is unwelcome. However, if informing the harasser is not possible,
the employees should lodge a complaint with the HR department. The HR department will then
launch investigations, and appropriate actions will be taken. An employee can also lodge a
complaint with the EEOC and, in so doing, have the EEOC take appropriate action. Employees
are, however, advised to exhaust organizational resolution mechanisms before seeking the input
of the EEOC. Should employees lodge a complaint with the EEOC, they can expect full
cooperation from the management and will not be victimized for taking such an action.

Communication of the Policy

Communication will be done formally. North American Stainless will ensure that all
employees are adequately informed on the new sexual harassment and discrimination policy.
Employees will be trained on the need to have a safe workplace environment. Training will be
scheduled where the management will present the policy to the employees. The policy will also
be placed at the company’s notice board, and all employees will retain a copy of the new policy.
The company will publish the statement on its website to guarantee transparency.

References

Findlaw. (n.d.). Protection against workplace retaliation: The Supreme Court hears argument in
Thompson v. North American stainless, part two in a two-part series |
FindLaw. https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/protection-against-workplace-
retaliation-the-supreme-court-hears-argument-in-thompson-v-north-american-stainless-
part-two-in-a-two-part-series.html
Legal Information Institute. (2021). Thompson v. North American stainless, lp. LII / Legal
Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-291.ZO.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). What you can expect after you file a
charge. https://www.eeoc.gov/what-you-can-expect-after-you-file-charge
Walsh, D. J. (2016). Employment law for human resource practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.