The plaintiff and his fianc?e worked for the same company.?? His fianc?e filed an EEOC charge in February 2003.? ?Three weeks later the employer?fired the plaintiff. ?He sued for retaliation. ?The district court granted summary judgment to the employer? because? Title? VII does ?not ?apply to third party claims. ?A panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed but that the en banc court reversed that decision.?? ?The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the en banc court. Justice? Scalia ?held ?that ?the ?employer?s action obviously constituted unlawful retaliation. Relying?? heavily?? on? ?Burlington? ?Northern? ?v. White, he reasoned that a reasonable employee would be deterred from reporting discrimination if she knew her fianc?e could be fired as result. The Court held that firing a close family member will ?almost ?always ?be? unlawful ?retaliation ?but that? mild ?reprisal? against ?an? acquaintance will almost never be.?? It refused to make any other generalizations except that the harm had to be objective. The more difficult? question? was? whether Title VII provided the plaintiff himself with a remedy, i.e., was a ?person aggrieved? under the stature. The Court rejected as dicta language in Trafficante ?v. ?Metropolitan ?Life ?Ins. ?Co., ?409 U.S. 205 (1972), suggesting that Title VII provided a remedy to all plaintiffs who satisfied Article III standing. ?Justice Scalia reasoned that such a standard would allow a shareholder to sue for firing a valuable employee for discriminatory reasons if the company?s stock value declined as a consequence. The Court instead adopted the ?zone of interests? test from administrative law.? ?A plaintiff has standing under that test unless the interests are so marginally related to, or are inconsistent with, the purposes of the statute that Congress could not have intended a remedy.? ?The Court found the plaintiff easily satisfied the test. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer filed a concurring opinion ?noting? that ?the ?Court?s decision ?was consistent with the views of the EEOC compliance? manual ?and ?the? views ?expressed were entitled to Skidmore deference.?Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, 131 S. Ct. 863 (1/24/11)