Yes. In a case with similar facts, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously endorsed an “associational” or “third-party” retaliation claim under Title VII. According to the High Court, an employee who was fired shortly after his fiancée filed an EEOC charge against their employer could file a Title VII retaliation lawsuit even though he did not personally engage in any statutorily protected activity for himself or on behalf of his fiancée. The Court applied a “zone of interests” test, which denies a right of review to a plaintiff whose interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in a statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the lawsuit. The Court found that the employee fell within the “zone of interests” protected by Title VII. He was an employee of the employer, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions. Moreover, the employee “was not an accidental victim of the retaliation — collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer’s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming” the fiancée. Accordingly, the Court found that the employee was a person aggrieved with standing to sue.

Source: Thompson v North American Stainless, LP (SCt 2011) 94 EPD ¶44,081.