Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating, with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment, against an employee because of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. There is no dispute that the statute prohibits employment decisions based on such protected characteristics of the employee who is the subject of an adverse employment action. It may surprise some employers to learn, however, that courts are increasingly interpreting the statute to prohibit discrimination against an employee because of the protected characteristics of a person with whom the employee associates.

Recently in Holcomb v. Iona College, the Second Circuit held for the first time that “an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race.” Craig Holcomb, a white male, claimed his termination as an assistant coach of the Iona College men’s basketball team was motivated because of his marriage to an African-American woman. In support of his claim, Holcomb testified to numerous race-related comments. For example, the Director of Athletics asked the head coach if he could “get these colored boys to dress like the white guys on the team.” On another occasion, when Holcomb asked the Vice President of the College if he received the wedding invitation Holcomb sent him, he was met with the following response: “Are you really going to marry that Aunt Jemima?” What made Holcomb’s case unusual is that the comments he relied on to support his discrimination claim were directed to the race of the individuals he associated with, as opposed to his own race.

The District Court dismissed Holcomb’s discrimination complaint, crediting the College’s defense that Holcomb’s termination was not discriminatorily motivated, but rather, was part of a general overhaul of the school’s basketball program. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the Second Circuit rejected the reasoning of earlier court decisions as overly restrictive and held that Title VII does not prohibit employment actions which are the result of an employee’s association with a person of another race. These courts refused to recognize an association discrimination claim on grounds that the express language of the statute only prohibits discriminatory action against an individual “because of such individual’s race.” The Second Circuit, however, disagreed with this interpretation, reasoning that Holcomb’s race, in fact, was considered by his employer in connection with the decision to terminate his employment. In other words, because Holcomb was involved in an interracial marriage, a relationship the College apparently disapproved of, his race was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

The Holcomb decision is not the first decision to recognize that an employer may violate Title VII if it takes action against an employee because of the employee’s association with a person of another race. In fact, this decision appears to be in line with a growing national trend, which includes decisions from the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit courts, recognizing the validity of association claims under Title VII. Not surprisingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long maintained that Title VII encompasses association claims on the basis that the overarching goal of Title VII, a remedial statute, was to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. Some states have even taken steps to enact legislation that expressly prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s associations. For instance, New York City’s anti-discrimination statute makes it illegal to discriminate “against a person because of the actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, alienage or citizenship of a person with whom such person has a known relationship or association.” Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination because of the known disability of an individual with whom the employee is known to have a relationship or association.

Given Title VII’s goal to eradicate discrimination in the workforce, it is perhaps not surprising that courts are willing to recognize association claims despite the absence of express language in the statute prohibiting such actions. Of course, this trend raises a number of questions, the most obvious of which is, what exactly constitutes an “association or relationship with” an individual in a protected category?These questions notwithstanding, employers should still take steps to ensure that adverse employment actions are not taken because the employee is in a protected category, or associates with someone who is.