In the 2010 case of Eric L. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thompson who was fired by his employer, North American Stainless (NAS), after his fiancée filed a sex discrimination claim against NAS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The court held that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision applied to an employee harmed by association due to an unlawful employment practice committed against another individual close to them. In this instance, it protected Thompson from retaliation for his then-fiancée’s complaint about discriminatory practices at their mutual workplace. This ruling expanded protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and clarified that employers cannot retaliate indirectly by harming someone closely related or associated with a worker who has complained about discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Eric L. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (2010), Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that Title VII does not permit third-party retaliation claims. They contended that the statute's anti-retaliation provision only protects those individuals who have personally engaged in protected activity - such as filing a complaint of discrimination - and not those who are associated with someone who has done so. In this case, they believed Thompson could not claim retaliation because he did not engage in any protected activity himself; his fiancée was the one who filed a sex discrimination charge against their mutual employer. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential difficulties in defining which relationships would qualify for protection under an expanded interpretation of Title VII's anti-retaliation clause.