This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits the use of third‑party reprisals as a method of retaliation against a person who complained to the EEOC or otherwise opposed discrimination.
To succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that discrimination occurred with respect to the individual who engaged in a protected activity.
According to United States (Amicus), according to United States (Amicus), the United States amicus brief argues that an employee who is fired because a relative or close associate filed an EEOC charge may sue under Title VII even though the employee himself did not engage in protected activity.
Ms. Latherow contends that the term “aggrieved” under Title VII should be read to include any person who claims to have been injured, mirroring the Fair Housing Act’s definition.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked whether Ms. Regalado is still engaged to the fellow.
Justice Kennedy asked whether Ms. Regalado could obtain reinstatement on the grounds that her husband’s continued inability to work causes ongoing harm to her.
Justice Alito asked whether the employee is “aggrieved” within the meaning of Title VII.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer prompted the Court to move to the second question.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether a close relative can sue on the grounds that he was injured, deliberately, in order to retaliate against his spouse or fiancé.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Eric L. Thompson
Ms. Latherow argues that “aggrieved” should be read to include any person who claims to have been injured, as defined in the Fair Housing Act.
Respondent – North American Stainless, LP
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether Ms. Regalado is still engaged to the fellow.
Justice Kennedy asked whether Ms. Regalado could obtain reinstatement because her husband’s inability to work causes ongoing harm.
Justice Alito asked whether the employee is “aggrieved” within the meaning of Title VII.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer prompted the Court to move to the second question.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether a close relative can sue on the grounds that he was injured, deliberately, to retaliate against his spouse or fiancé.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts thanked counsel and noted that the case was submitted.
- [1] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 36
- [5] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 46
- [6] 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdf, p. 56
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses whether Title VII protects employees who are terminated because a family member filed an EEOC charge, potentially expanding retaliation protections.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6f20740a43ef645b95fd-r1-87541634de577cea.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.