Document: 519 U.S. 337117 S.Ct. 843136 L.Ed.2d 808 Charles T. ROBINSON, Sr., Petitioner,v.SHELL OIL COMPANY. No. 95-1376. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 6, 1996. Decided Feb. 18, 1997. Syllabus * After he was fired by respondent, petitioner filed an employment discrimination charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. While that pending, applied for a job another company, which contacted respondent reference. Claiming gave him negative reference in retaliation his having EEOC charge, suit §704(a) VII, makes it unlawful "for employer to discriminate against any employees or applicants employment'' who have availed themselves VII's protections. The District dismissed action, and en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding term "employees'' refers only current therefore petitioner's claim not cognizable VII. Held: Because "employees,'' as used includes former employees, may sue its allegedly retaliatory postemployment actions. Pp. ___-___. (a) Consideration statutory language, specific context is used, broader whole leads conclusion ambiguous whether excludes employees. First, there no temporal qualifier such would make plain protects persons still employed at time retaliation. Second, §701(f)'s general definition "employee'' likewise lacks consistent either past employment. Third, number other provisions, including §§706(g)(1), 717(b), 717(c), use mean something more inclusive different than "current employees.'' That sections refer unambiguously employee, see, e.g., §703(h), §717(b), most demonstrates meaning particular section-not has same all contexts. Once established some sections, but others, standing alone necessarily each section must be analyzed determine gives definite meaning. (b) A are included within §704(a)'s coverage provided primary purpose maintaining unfettered access remedial mechanisms. As noted, several statute plainly contemplate will These include §703(a), prohibits discriminatory "discharge.'' Insofar expressly from filing "charge,'' §703(a) alleging discharge brought far scope protected §704(a). This interpretation supported arguments exclusion undermine effectiveness allowing threat deter victims complaining EEOC, provide perverse incentive employers fire might bring claims. 70 F.3d 325, reversed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Allen M. Lenchek, Rockville, MD, petitioner. Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Lawrence C. Butler, Houston, TX, respondent. Justice THOMAS 1 Section 704(a) 1964 protections assisted others so doing. 78 Stat. 257, amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a). We asked decide this case §704(a), actions taken (EEOC). Appeals Circuit, sitting banc, held referred granted certiorari, 517 ----, 116 1541, 134 645 (1996), now reverse. 2 Respondent Shell Oil Co. Robinson, 1991. Shortly thereafter, had discharged because race. company. company employer, Petitioner claims charge. 3 subsequently sued discrimination. On respondent's motion, adhering previous precedent does apply appealed, divided panel reversed rehearing vacated decision, thereafter affirmed Court's determination occurring after termination their 325 (1995) (en banc). 4 certiorari order resolve conflict among Circuits on issue.1 II 5 Our first step interpreting language issue unambiguous regard dispute case. inquiry cease if "the scheme coherent consistent.'' v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 235, 240, 109 1026, 1030, 103 290 (1989); see also Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 253-254, 112 1146, 1149-1150, 117 391 (1992). 6 plainness ambiguity determined itself, whole. Estate Cowart Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 469, 477, 2589, 2594-2595, 120 379 (1992); McCarthy Bronson, 500 136, 139, 111 1737, 1740, 114 194 (1991). In case, consideration those factors us conclude 7 At blush, seem existing relationship question. Cf. Walters Metropolitan Ed. 660, 664, --- ---- (1997) (interpreting §701(b), §2000e(b)). initial impression, however, withstand scrutiny could phrase "former employees'' aid our inquiry. Congress But nowhere used-even where otherwise clear intent cover employees.2 Similarly, statutes been employees,'' §1301(4) (1994 ed., Supp. I) (defining employee''); §1212(a)(1) (including "employees, operative provision), proves can unqualified did statute. 8 701(f) defines purposes "an individual employer.'' §2000e(f). argument "employed,'' §701(f), commonly " [p]erforming work employer-employee relationship,'' Black's Law Dictionary 525 (6th ed.1990), begs question implicitly reading word "employed'' "is employed.'' limited possible meanings, just easily read "was 9 provisions For example, §§706(g)(1) 717(b) both authorize affirmative action (by court respectively) "which . reinstatement hiring §§2000e-5(g)(1) 2000e-16(b). notes, one "reinstat[e]'' Likewise, hire individuals typically already 10 requires federal departments agencies equal opportunity policies rules, shall provision employee applicant notified final complaint thereunder.'' §2000e-16(b). If involves discharge, often does, employee. §717(c) provides "employee employment, aggrieved disposition complaint, file civil '' §2000e-16(c). Again, given forbidden "personnel actio[n] affecting §717(a), §2000e-16(a), See Loeffler Frank, 486 549, 108 1965, 100 549 (1988) (involving successfully §717 Postal Service employee).3 11 Of course, where, context, example addressing salary promotions. §2000e-2(h) (allowing standards compensation "employees locations''); §2000e-16(b) (directing establish plan "to maximum advance perform highest potential''). 12 examples demonstrate further dispute.4 13 argues addition "his'' before narrows provision. Brief 19. true, goes, us-namely, what frame exist. "his exclude never worked being charged 14 Nor we convinced Congress' inclusion "applicants distinct coupled failure evidence congressional "applicants'' serve confine, inference, "employees.'' Respondent's rests incorrect premise equivalent "future many become Unsuccessful turn down offer, applicants, future And fails certain offered accept jobs without jobs. synonymous basis engaging (and questionable) inference intentional 15 Finally, "individual'' well §2000e-2(a), meaningful assistance resolving To sure, facially encompass present issue. "individual,'' therefore, designed capture insight into B 16 Finding ambiguous, left ambiguity. considerable regard. noted above, mechanisms supra, __-__. Indeed, "discharge'' practices directed. §2000e-2(a). "charge'' 17 support view, hold effectively vitiate much protection afforded 20-30. position EEOC. Amici Curiae 16-25; Compliance Manual §614.7(f). According post-employment 18-21. 18 Those carry persuasive force coherence consistency antiretaliation provisions: Maintaining NLRB Scrivener, 405 117, 121-122, 92 798, 800-801, 31 79 (1972) (National Labor Relations Act); Mitchell Robert DeMario Jewelry, 361 288, 292-293, 80 332, 335-336, 323 (1960) (Fair Standards Act). quite persuasively maintains destructive able retaliate impunity entire class acts VII-for complaints regarding termination. agree these contentions find they suggested III 19 It coverage. Accordingly, decision 20 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Courts considered Charlton Paramus Bd. Educ., 25 194, 198-200 (C.A.3 1994), cert. denied, 513 1022, 115 590, 130 (1994); Bailey USX Corp., 850 F.2d 1506, 1509 (C.A.11 1988); O'Brien Sky Chefs, 670 864, 869 (C.A.9 1982), overruled grounds Atonio Wards Cove Packing 810 1477, 1481-1482 1987) banc); Pantchenko C.B. Dolge 581 1052, 1055 (C.A.2 1978); Rutherford American Commerce, 565 1162, 1165 (C.A.10 1977). indicated joined approach Seventh Reed Shepard, 939 484, 492-493 (C.A.7 1991). since repudiated Circuit's view Reed. Veprinsky Fluor Daniel, 87 881, 886 1996). recent (1997), §2000e(b), whom relationship. U.S., S.Ct., 664. §701(b) two significant qualifiers. provision, delimits coverage, states applies "who fifteen working day twenty calendar weeks preceding year.'' §2000e(b) (emphasis added). emphasized words specify exist, thus Other 701(c) "employment agency'' "any person regularly undertaking procure opportunities §2000e(c). naturally "prospective 701(e) uses identical when providing labor organization affects commerce "operates hall office procures §2000e(e). Petitioner's non-Title cases using largely irrelevant, except extent tend rebut intrinsically See, Richardson Belcher, 404 78, 81, 83, 254, 257-258, 30 231 (1971) (unemployed disabled worker); Nash Florida Industrial Comm'n, 389 239, 88 362, 366, 438 (1967) (individual fired); Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 611, 1367, 1372-1373, 1435 (retired worker).

Category: 1