咨询律师 找律师 案件委托   热门省份: 北京 浙江 上海 山东 广东 天津 重庆 江苏 湖南 湖北 四川 河南 河北 110法律咨询网 法律咨询 律师在线 法律百科
我的位置:110网首页 >> 资料库 >> 律师随笔 >> 查看资料

美国最新劳动法案件 Thompson v NAS

发布日期:2011-02-10    作者:110网律师
涉外律师田凤常向读者介绍说,美国最高法院在最新的(2011124 日)一起劳动案件中裁定:“一个公司如果以报复为目的将其职员的未婚妻(夫)无辜辞退,则该职员有权对该公司提起诉讼”。这一最新裁定是对下级法院狭义解读美国反歧视法的否定。
The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected a narrow reading of a federal antidiscrimination law, ruling instead that a company can be sued for trying to retaliate against a worker by firing her fiancé.
 
最高法院的法官一致认为,针对某一指控雇主具有歧视行为的雇员而言,美国民权法案第7节的规定含有禁止雇主试图通过对雇员的未婚夫采取措施来达到惩罚雇员的目的,
In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from attempting to punish an employee who has accused the company of discrimination by taking action against the employee’s future husband.
 
最高法院的结论指出:在本案中,这个未婚夫有权就职场中发生的非法报复行为对雇主提起诉讼。
The court concluded that in such a case the future husband has the legal authority to sue the employer for an illegal act of workplace retaliation.
 
本案中两位雇员主角分别为:北美不锈钢公司(NAS)的同事,玛丽阿姆 雷格拉多 和她的未婚夫埃里克 汤普森。
That’s what happened to two workers at North American Stainless – Miriam Regalado and her fiancé Eric Thompson.
 
20032月,雷格拉多女士 以性别歧视为由,向EEOC状告NASEEOC是美国审理性别歧视的特别机构(就业机会均等委员会)。三周后,汤普森先生遭NSA解雇。
In February 2003, Ms. Regalado filed a sex discrimination complaint against the Kentucky-based stainless steel plant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Three weeks later, the company fired Mr. Thompson.
 
于是,汤普森也向EEOC状告NAS。其后又向法院对NAS提起诉讼,诉称对其实施的解雇行为实际上是在报复雷格拉多起初提出的歧视指控。
Thompson responded by filing his own EEOC complaint against the company, and later sued North American Steel for firing him as a way to retaliate against Regalado for her original discrimination complaint.
 
NAS在法庭上辩称:美国民权法案第7节的规定并未授予第三方以“报复”因由提起诉讼的权利。NAS讲,法律所保护的对象只是那些本人由于种族、宗教信仰或性别歧视等原因遭到报复进而本身作为主体提起诉讼的情形。
The company argued in court that Title VII does not allow third party retaliation claims. The company said the law only protects individuals from retaliation who have themselves filed a claim based on racial, ethnic, religious, or gender discrimination.
 
NAS 的律师指出:由于汤普森也没有以此为由提起诉讼,民权法案第7节的规定对他根本就不适用,对他不能提供保护。
Since Thompson had not filed such a claim, Title VII’s antiretaliation provision offered him no protection, the company’s lawyers said.
 
初审本案的联邦法官同意NAS的观点,将汤普森案件潦草结案。二审本案的第六巡回上诉法院作出了支持一审法院的判决。
A federal judge agreed and threw Thompson’s case out. On appeal, the full Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.
 
周一,美国最高法院推翻了上述判决,最高法院指出:民权法案第7节“反报复”规定,不仅仅局限于法律条文明确的、反歧视保护涵盖的群体;而应该理解为,本规定涵盖了所有的有理由寻求法律保护的、与之有利害关系的任何雇员。
In reversing that ruling on Monday, the high court said the anti retaliation provision of Title VII is not limited solely to those who are covered by the statutes antidiscrimination protections. Rather, the court said, the statute covers any employee with an interest arguably [sought] to be protected by the statute.
 
本案司法判决文书执笔者,安东尼 斯凯利亚大法官说:汤普森属于这个范畴之列。
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Thompson was within that group.
 
斯凯利亚大法官在判文中写道:“汤普森是NAS的雇员,民权法案第7节的目的是保护雇员,使之不受雇主非法行为的迫害”。
Thompson was an employee of NAS, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions,” Justice Scalia wrote.
 
“事实若是如此,那么,汤普森就不是报复行为的偶然的受害者;而恰恰相反,伤害汤普森就是雇主故意侵害雷格拉多手段;恰恰是雇主通过伤害汤普森这一非法行径来惩罚雷格拉多。”
Accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation,” he said. “To the contrary, injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her.”

“在这种情形下,我们认为汤普森恰如其分地属于民权法案第7节欲予以保护的利益区域范畴之内”。
Scalia added, “In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII.”
 
我们注意到,在法院得出做后的决定过程中,大法官们执意不去列举究竟哪种关系会使雇主针对第三人实施的报复行为视为非法。最高法院并没有回答,比如:辞退的是一个“最要好的朋友”时是否也可以理解为符合上述条件这一问题。
In reaching their decision, the justices declined to spell out precisely which relationships would render unlawful an employer’s retaliation against a third party. The court left unanswered, for example, whether the firing of a best friend would qualify.
 
斯凯利亚大法官补充说:“我们觉得被辞退的如果是一个亲密的家庭成员的话,肯定是满足了这种标准;不过,若是仅以此人是我的熟人为由提起反报复诉讼便勉为其难了。对此,我们只能说到这一步,我们无意对此一一列举。”
We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the  standard,” Scalia said. “Inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so,” he added. “But beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.”
 
The case is Thompson v. North American Stainless (09-291).
以上是田凤常律师对汤普森v NAS 案件的报道。 田凤常律师认为Thompson v NAS 案件的结果在美国会产生重大影响,对中国的司法实践也会产生借鉴作用。
没找到您需要的? 您可以 发布法律咨询 ,我们的律师随时在线为您服务
  • 问题越详细,回答越精确,祝您的问题早日得到解决!
发布咨询
发布您的法律问题
推荐律师
朱建宇律师
山东菏泽
陈晓云律师
北京西城区
郑世红律师
浙江宁波
黄文坚律师
广西贵港
王海波律师
山东济南
王远洋律师
湖北襄阳
尹子娟律师
广东深圳
黄险峰律师
辽宁大连
陈宇律师
福建福州
热点专题更多
免费法律咨询 | 广告服务 | 律师加盟 | 联系方式 | 人才招聘 | 友情链接网站地图
载入时间:0.02000秒 copyright©2006 110.com inc. all rights reserved.
版权所有:110.com