In addition, US law raises the question of standing in cases of associated discrimination.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, persons have standing firstly if they suffer a detriment at the hands of the employer, for example through the termination of the employment relationship, which is disproportionate, and secondly if there is a possibility of redress for the injustice suffered. Thus, if the discriminated employee and the trait holder are the same, there is no problem with standing. In EEOC v Bailey, the court emphasised that every employee has the right to a discrimination-free workplace, which suggests a broad concept of a violation of rights. Referring to the Supreme Court decision Trafficante v Metropolitan Life Ins, the court held that white people can also have their rights violated if Black people are discriminated against in their workplace and therefore have standing to sue. However, employees who have the right to sue must prove that this discrimination in the workplace is a burden on them.

Still, in relation to associated discrimination, not every employee has standing if the discrimination by the employer is directed against colleagues or third parties. Standing only applies to those who are understood to be adversely affected under section 706(b) according to the following three criteria.  Plaintiffs must have suffered a detriment as a result of the employer's unlawful conduct. In addition, there must be a possibility of redress for the injustice suffered and the plaintiff must fall within the scope of protection of the asserted standard. Section 703 (a) states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his or her race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. Here, there is a narrowly defined possessive reference, i.e. only the bearers of the characteristic themselves can make a complaint. Section 706 (b), on the other hand, is more openly formulated and states that a complaint and action by any person asserting a complaint is admissible. In contrast to section 703 (a), the person complained about does not have to be the feature holder.