Whether a family member who is the intentional target of retaliatory actions by an employer is a 'person aggrieved' for purposes of Title VII only if the family member happens to be an employee of the defendant

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who engages in protected conduct, such as opposing discrimination or filing a lawsuit under Title VII. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011), this Court held that the retaliation provisions of Title VII apply not only to direct retaliation against an employee who opposes discriminatory conduct, but also to retaliation against the family members of an employee who opposes discriminatory conduct. The Court held that the family members could sue for their own injuries if they qualified as “persons aggrieved” under Title VII. The Court applied the “zone of interests” test to determine whether a family member qualified as a “person aggrieved.” This case presents the following issues: 1. Whether a family member who is the intentional target of retaliatory actions by an employer is a “person aggrieved” for purposes of Title VII only if the family member happens to be an employee of the defendant. 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by limiting Thompson to cases in which the family member happens to be an employee of the defendant.