robinson
shell
oil
argued
november
decided
february
held
term
employees
used
title
vii
includes
former
employees
petitioner
may
sue
respondent
allegedly
retaliatory
postemployment
actions
pp
consideration
statutory
language
specific
context
used
broader
context
title
vii
whole
leads
conclusion
term
employees
ambiguous
whether
excludes
former
employees
first
temporal
qualifier
make
plain
protects
persons
still
employed
time
retaliation
second
general
definition
employee
likewise
lacks
temporal
qualifier
consistent
either
current
past
employment
third
number
title
vii
provisions
including
use
term
employees
mean
something
inclusive
different
current
employees
still
sections
usethe
term
refer
unambiguously
current
employee
see
demonstrates
term
may
plain
meaning
context
particular
section
meaning
sections
contexts
established
employees
includes
former
employees
sections
others
term
standing
alone
necessarily
ambiguous
section
must
analyzed
determine
whether
context
gives
term
definite
meaning
pp
holding
former
employees
included
within
coverage
consistent
broader
context
provided
title
vii
sections
primary
purpose
maintaining
unfettered
access
title
vii
remedial
mechanisms
noted
several
sections
statute
plainly
contemplate
former
employees
make
use
title
vii
remedial
mechanisms
include
prohibits
discriminatory
discharge
insofar
expressly
protects
employees
retaliation
filing
charge
charge
alleging
unlawful
discharge
necessarily
brought
former
employee
far
consistent
include
former
employees
within
scope
employees
protected
interpretation
supported
arguments
petitioner
eeoc
exclusion
former
employees
undermine
title
vii
effectiveness
allowing
threat
postemployment
retaliation
deter
victims
discrimination
complaining
eeoc
provide
perverse
incentive
employers
fire
employees
might
bring
title
vii
claims
pp
reversed
thomas
delivered
opinion
unanimous
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
charles
robinson
petitioner
shell
oil
company
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
february
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
section
title
vii
civil
rights
act
makes
unlawful
employer
discriminate
employees
applicants
employment
either
availed
title
vii
protections
assisted
others
stat
amended
asked
decide
case
whether
term
employees
used
includes
former
employees
petitioner
may
bring
suit
former
employer
postemployment
actions
allegedly
taken
retaliation
petitioner
filed
charge
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
appeals
fourth
circuit
sitting
en
banc
held
term
employees
referred
current
employees
therefore
petitioner
claim
cognizable
title
vii
granted
certiorari
reverse
respondent
shell
oil
fired
petitioner
charles
robinson
shortly
thereafter
petitioner
filed
charge
eeoc
alleging
respondent
discharged
race
thatcharge
pending
petitioner
applied
job
another
company
company
contacted
respondent
petitioner
former
employer
employment
reference
petitioner
claims
respondent
gave
negative
reference
retaliation
filed
eeoc
charge
petitioner
subsequently
sued
alleging
retaliatory
discrimination
respondent
motion
district
dismissed
action
adhering
previous
fourth
circuit
precedent
holding
apply
former
employees
petitioner
appealed
divided
panel
fourth
circuit
reversed
district
fourth
circuit
granted
rehearing
en
banc
vacated
panel
decision
thereafter
affirmed
district
determination
former
employees
may
bring
suit
retaliation
occurring
termination
employment
en
banc
granted
certiorari
order
resolve
conflict
among
circuits
issue
first
step
interpreting
statute
determine
whether
language
issue
plain
unambiguous
meaning
regard
particular
dispute
case
inquiry
must
cease
statutory
language
unambiguous
statutory
scheme
coherent
consistent
ron
pair
enterprises
see
also
connecticut
nat
bank
germain
plainness
ambiguity
statutory
language
determined
reference
language
specific
context
language
used
broader
context
statute
whole
estate
cowart
nicklos
drilling
mccarthy
bronson
case
consideration
factors
leads
us
conclude
term
employees
used
ambiguous
whether
excludes
former
employees
first
blush
term
employees
seem
refer
existing
employment
relationship
employer
question
cf
walters
metropolitan
ed
enterprises
slip
interpreting
term
employees
initial
impression
however
withstand
scrutiny
context
first
temporal
qualifier
statute
make
plain
protects
persons
still
employed
time
retaliation
statute
expressly
included
phrase
former
employees
aid
inquiry
congress
also
used
phrase
current
employees
nowhere
title
vii
either
phrase
used
even
specific
context
otherwise
makesclear
intent
cover
current
former
employees
similarly
statutes
specific
coverage
employees
former
employees
see
supp
defining
employee
include
former
employee
including
employees
former
employees
applicants
employment
operative
provision
proves
congress
use
unqualified
term
employees
refer
current
employees
particular
statute
second
title
vii
definition
employee
likewise
lacks
temporal
qualifier
consistent
either
current
past
employment
section
defines
employee
purposes
title
vii
individual
employed
employer
argument
term
employed
used
commonly
used
mean
erforming
work
relationship
black
law
dictionary
ed
begs
question
implicitly
reading
word
employed
mean
employed
word
employed
limited
possible
meanings
easily
read
mean
employed
third
number
provisions
title
vii
usethe
term
employees
mean
something
inclusive
different
current
employees
example
authorize
affirmative
remedial
action
eeoc
respectively
may
include
reinstatement
hiring
employees
petitioner
notes
one
reinstat
current
employees
language
necessarily
refers
former
employees
likewise
one
may
hire
individuals
employees
one
typically
hire
persons
already
employees
section
requires
federal
departments
agencies
equal
employment
opportunity
policies
rules
shall
include
provision
employee
applicant
employment
shall
notified
final
action
taken
complaint
discrimination
filed
thereunder
complaint
involves
discriminatory
discharge
often
employee
must
notified
necessarily
former
employee
similarly
provides
employee
applicant
employment
aggrieved
final
disposition
complaint
may
file
civil
action
given
discriminatory
discharge
forbidden
personnel
actio
affecting
employees
see
term
employee
necessarily
includes
former
employee
see
loeffler
frank
involving
discriminatory
discharge
action
successfully
brought
former
postal
service
employee
course
sections
title
vii
context
use
term
employee
refers
unambiguously
current
employee
example
sections
addressing
salary
promotions
see
allowing
different
standards
compensation
employees
work
different
locations
directing
federal
agencies
establish
plan
provide
maximum
opportunity
employees
advance
perform
highest
potential
examples
demonstrate
term
employees
may
plain
meaning
context
particular
section
term
meaning
sections
contexts
established
term
employees
includes
former
employees
sections
others
term
standing
alone
necessarily
ambiguous
section
must
analyzed
determine
whether
context
gives
term
meaning
resolve
issue
dispute
respondent
argues
addition
word
employees
narrows
scope
provision
brief
respondent
argument
true
far
goes
resolve
question
us
namely
time
frame
must
employmentrelationship
exist
phrase
employees
include
former
employees
still
exclude
persons
never
worked
particular
employer
charged
retaliation
convinced
respondent
argument
congress
inclusion
applicants
employment
persons
distinct
employees
coupled
failure
include
former
employees
evidence
congressional
intent
include
former
employees
use
term
applicants
serve
confine
negative
inference
temporal
scope
term
employees
respondent
argument
rests
incorrect
premise
term
applicants
equivalent
phrase
future
employees
term
applicants
seem
cover
many
persons
become
employees
unsuccessful
applicants
turn
job
offer
example
applicants
future
employees
term
fails
cover
certain
future
employees
may
offered
accept
jobs
without
apply
jobs
term
applicants
synonymous
phrase
future
employees
basis
engaging
questionable
negative
inference
inclusion
term
applicants
demonstrates
intentional
exclusion
former
employees
finally
use
term
individual
well
provides
meaningful
assistance
resolving
case
sure
individual
broader
term
employee
facially
seem
cover
former
employee
also
encompass
present
employee
well
persons
never
employment
relationship
employer
issue
term
individual
therefore
seem
designed
capture
former
employees
distinct
current
employees
use
provides
insight
whetherthe
term
employees
limited
currentemployees
finding
term
employees
ambiguous
left
resolve
ambiguity
broader
context
provided
sections
statute
provides
considerable
assistance
regard
noted
several
sections
statute
plainly
contemplate
former
employees
make
use
remedial
mechanisms
title
vii
see
supra
indeed
expressly
includes
discriminatory
discharge
one
unlawful
employment
practices
title
vii
directed
insofar
expressly
protects
employees
retaliation
filing
charge
title
vii
charge
alleging
unlawful
discharge
necessarily
brought
former
employee
far
consistent
include
former
employees
within
scope
employees
protected
support
view
petitioner
argues
word
employees
includes
former
employees
hold
otherwise
effectively
vitiate
much
protection
afforded
see
brief
petitioner
also
position
taken
eeoc
see
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
see
also
eeoc
compliance
manual
according
eeoc
exclusion
former
employees
protection
undermine
effectiveness
title
vii
allowing
threat
post
employment
retaliation
deter
victims
discrimination
complaining
eeoc
provide
perverse
incentive
employers
fire
employees
might
bring
title
vii
claims
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
arguments
carry
persuasive
force
given
theircoherence
consistency
primary
purpose
antiretaliation
provisions
maintaining
unfettered
access
statutory
remedial
mechanisms
cf
nlrb
scrivener
national
labor
relations
act
mitchell
robert
demario
jewelry
fair
labor
standards
act
eeoc
quite
persuasively
maintains
destructive
purpose
antiretaliation
provision
employer
able
retaliate
impunity
entire
class
acts
title
vii
example
complaints
regarding
discriminatory
termination
agree
contentions
find
support
inclusive
interpretation
employees
already
suggested
broader
context
title
vii
hold
term
employees
used
title
vii
ambiguous
whether
includes
former
employees
consistent
broader
context
title
vii
primary
purpose
hold
former
employees
included
within
coverage
accordingly
decision
fourth
circuit
reversed
ordered
footnotes
courts
appeals
considered
issue
held
term
employees
include
former
employees
see
charlton
paramus
bd
cert
denied
bailey
usx
sky
chefs
overruled
grounds
atonio
wards
cove
packing
en
banc
pantchenko
dolge
rutherford
american
bank
commerce
fourth
circuit
indicated
joined
approach
taken
seventh
circuit
reed
shepard
seventh
circuit
since
repudiated
fourth
circuit
view
reed
see
veprinsky
fluor
daniel
recent
decision
walters
metropolitan
ed
enterprises
held
term
employees
referred
persons
employer
existing
employment
relationship
see
slip
two
significant
temporal
qualifiers
provision
delimits
title
vii
coverage
act
applies
employer
fifteen
employees
working
day
twenty
calendar
weeks
current
preceding
calendar
year
emphasis
added
emphasized
words
specify
time
frame
employment
relationship
must
exist
thus
specific
context
section
present
particular
ambiguity
issue
present
case
sections
also
seem
use
term
employees
mean
something
current
employees
section
defines
employment
agency
person
regularly
undertaking
procure
employees
employer
procure
employees
opportunities
work
employer
language
naturally
read
mean
prospective
employees
section
uses
identical
language
providing
labor
organization
affects
commerce
operates
hiring
hall
hiring
office
procures
employees
employer
petitioner
examples
non
title
vii
cases
using
term
employee
refer
former
employee
largely
irrelevant
except
extent
tend
rebut
claim
term
employee
intrinsically
plain
meaning
see
richardson
belcher
unemployed
disabled
worker
nash
florida
industrial
individual
fired
flemming
nestor
retired
worker