October Term 2010 · Docket 09-291

Can a fired fiancé sue for workplace retaliation?

Eric Thompson claims his employer fired him to punish his fiancée for opposing sex discrimination.

Official caption
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Schnapper argued the statute text does not limit retaliation types.

    Latherow argued Thompson did not allege personal discrimination.

    questions_detail

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Thompson seeks damages for his termination. The employer argues he lacks standing because he did not face discrimination.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 7, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Thompson wants a damages award for his job loss.

The employer wants the dismissal of Thompson's lawsuit.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Thompson argues the statute bans third-party reprisals without limiting the type of retaliation.

The employer argues the statute only protects employees who personally face discrimination.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if Thompson is aggrieved under Title VII.

Justice Kennedy asked if shareholders could sue for lost employee value.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can sue for workplace retaliation. It sets the boundary for third-party claims. It clarifies the scope of Title VII protections.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON