U.S. Supreme Court Holds Adverse Action Against a Close Family Member of a Complainant Emloyee May Now Constitute Illegal Retaliation

The United States Supreme Court recently held in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011) that taking an adverse employment action against a close family member of an employee may constitute illegal retaliation.

This decision follows a recent trend of Supreme Court decisions expanding the scope of protection for employees in retaliation cases. The Court's conclusion that "close family members" may raise claims of their own, while "mere acquaintances" may not leaves a lot of room for disagreement over who can qualify as a "close family member" and will likely become the subject of significant litigation.

Allegations in Lawsuit Must be "Reasonably Related" to Allegations in Charge of Discrimination to Survive Motion to Dismiss

Joseph Abellard filed a charge of discrimination against Boeing, his employer, with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and EEOC on June 15, 2008. The charge alleged discrimination on the bases of race, age and disability. Plaintiff's charge read as follows:

I was hired by [Boeing] in November 1995. My last position held was Engineer Specialist/Sr. Engineer. In December 2007 I went on medical leave. I returned to work on March 5, 2008. I worked through March 7, 2008 but was informed that I had not provided the required documents for a release to return to work. I provided the employer with a release to return to work from my Psychiatrist. I was told I had to get another release from my primary doctor. I provided all of the required documents as instructed. Around March 26, 2008 I received a termination letter stating that I was terminated for being on leave illegally. I believe that I have been discriminated against due to a record of and/or perceived disability. I also believe that I have been discriminated against due to my race (African American) and age (52). This is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Sometime thereafter, Mr. Abellard filed suit against Boeing alleging harassment, retaliation, failure to transfer, failure to accommodate, and being subjected to different terms and conditions of employment. Boeing filed a motion to dismiss arguing that these allegations were outside the scope of Mr. Abellard's charge of discrimination and therefore must be dismissed. The trial court agreed and dismissed these allegations finding that the allegations were not "reasonably related" to Mr. Abellard's charge and that Mr. Abellard had therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Abellard v. Boeing, No. 4:10CV724 JCH (E.D.Mo. 2010).