United States Sixth Circuit

Title VII prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action against employees not directly involved in protected activity, but who are so closely related to or associated with those who are directly involved, that it is clear that the protected activity motivated the employer's action. Thus, in the case at hand, the anti-retaliation provisions in Title VII protect plaintiff from retaliation under circumstances where plaintiff was terminated after his fiancee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against their common employer.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/10/2008
• Decided 03/31/2008
• Published 03/31/2008

Judges

• Before:  BOGGS, Chief Judge;  MARTIN, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  David O'Brien Suetholz, Segal, Lindsay & Janes, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  Leigh Gross Latherow, VanAntwerp, Monge, Jones, Edwards & McCann, LLP, Ashland, Kentucky, for Appellee.  Gail S. Coleman, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.   ON BRIEF:  David O'Brien Suetholz, Joseph Delano Wibbels, Jr., Segal, Lindsay & Janes, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.  Leigh Gross Latherow, Gregory L. Monge, VanAntwerp, Monge, Jones, Edwards & McCann, LLP, Ashland, Kentucky, for Appellee.  Gail S. Coleman, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., Rae T. Vann, Norris, Tysse, Lampley & Lakis, LLP, Washington, D.C., Nelson D. Cary, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.