Task: Text Completion
Input (English): no uncertain terms, Congress, for whatever reason, has chosen, through the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, to protect “employees,” i.e., “individuals] employed by an employer,” and “applicants for employment,” but not to protect former employees. Because Robinson’s complaint alleges post-employment retaliation, the district court properly dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 1 . The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in Polsby and remanded the case to this court "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Acting Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed March 5, 1993 Cir.1988); EEOC v. Cosmair, Inc., L'Oreal Hair Care Div., 821 F.2d 1085, 1088 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); O'Brien v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 670 F.2d 864, 869 
 Holding statements: (A) holding employee under fair labor standard acts antiretaliation provision includes former employees (B) holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination (C) holding that former employees subjective belief that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination without more is not enough to survive former employers summary judgment motion (D) holding employees under adeas parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship (E) recognizing that an injury arises out of the employment relationship if it can be traced to the nature of employment or the workplace environment
Output (English): (D)