Much to the dismay of shady corporations everywhere, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided one for the little guy.
Miriam Regalado sued her employer for gender discrimination, and just a few weeks later, her employer fired her fiancé. “This was sending a message,” Regalado said. “They're saying to other employees, ‘Don't you dare do what she did. Otherwise, we'll take care of you like we did with her.’”
So the couple sued their employer, North American Stainless. Lower courts threw the case out, but the Supreme Court unanimously decided the couple has reason to sue.
In an eight-page decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation—collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer's unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer's intended means of harming Regalado.”
Score!
Miriam Regalado sued her employer for gender discrimination, and just a few weeks later, her employer fired her fiancé. “This was sending a message,” Regalado said. “They're saying to other employees, ‘Don't you dare do what she did. Otherwise, we'll take care of you like we did with her.’”
So the couple sued their employer, North American Stainless. Lower courts threw the case out, but the Supreme Court unanimously decided the couple has reason to sue.
In an eight-page decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation—collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer's unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer's intended means of harming Regalado.”
Score!
Comments