Document: 519 U.S. 202117 S.Ct. 660136 L.Ed.2d 644 Darlene WALTERS, Petitioner,v.METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. and Leonard Bieber.EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, INC., Bieber. Nos. 95-259, 95-779. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 6, 1996. Decided Jan. 14, 1997. Syllabus * In 1990, petitioner Walters was fired by respondent Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., soon after she filed an employment discrimination charge against it under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. Petitioner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Metropolitan, alleging that firing violated VII's antiretaliation provision. After intervened, a motion to dismiss for lack subject-matter jurisdiction, claiming not ''employer'' covered because, at time alleged retaliation, ''a person . who has fifteen or more employees each working day in twenty calendar weeks current preceding year.'' 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The parties have stipulated failed satisfy 15-employee threshold 1989; that, during most had between 15 17 on its payroll day; there were only nine which actually compensating day. District dismissed case, relying Circuit precedent effect may be counted 2000e(b) purposes days they performed work being compensated despite their absence. Seventh affirmed. Held: u ltimate touchstone is whether employer relationships with individuals 20 year question. Pp. ___-___. (a) ''payroll method''-which looks relationship employee question, as readily demonstrated individual's appearance employer's payroll-represents fair reading statutory language. That method embodies ordinary, contemporary, common meaning ''has [an] employe[e].'' While phrase ''for day'' suggests possibility test based given day, such would impossible administer reflects improbable statute. advocated focuses plausible criterion ''has'' employee. (b) approach does render superfluous qualification day.'' Without this phrase, one sure count part-week toward minimum. Nor dispositive produces some strange consequences regard coverage, since Metropolitan's unique peculiarities own. latter also turn coverage determination into incredibly complex expensive factual inquiry, whereas, method, all needs know about he started ended and, if so, when. He arrival before departure. (c) Under petitioners' retaliatory-discharge claim. P. ___. 60 F.3d 1225 (C.A.7 1995), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Constantine John Gekas, Chicago, IL, No. 95-259. Seth Waxman, Washington, DC, Patrick J. Falahee, Jr., respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 1964 applies any 78 Stat. 253, amended, These cases present question maintains employee, receiving compensation from employer. 2 employed retail distributor encyclopedias, dictionaries, other educational materials. (EEOC), discriminated her account sex failing promote position credit manager. Soon her. 3 On April 7, 1993, EEOC suit owner, Bieber (hereinafter collectively Metropolitan), constituted unlawful retaliation. intervened suit. company did pass VII. 4 granted dismiss, 864 F.Supp. 71 (N.D.Ill.1994), Zimmerman v. North American Signal Co., 704 F.2d 347, 354 1983), affirmed Court's decision appeal judgment, Appeals reaffirmed Zimmerman. 1995). We certiorari. 516 ----, 116 1260, 134 209 (1996). II 5 Petitioners' rests provision, 2000e-3(a), makes discriminate filing complaints discrimination. subject VII, however, if, met definition ''employer,'' wit: engaged industry affecting commerce 6 ''working days'' are Monday through Friday, ''current'' ''preceding'' years claim 1990 1989. During but (including paid leave compensation). difference resulted fact two part-time hourly ordinarily skipped week. *FDW* (but EEOC) addition violating basic antidiscrimination 2000e-2(a), manager September granting stated relevant determining status 1989 1990. 71, 72 (N.D.Ill.1994). For Walters' claim, 1988 Because mention issue petition certiorari brief merits, we treat objection disposition matter waived. 7 agree particular whom ''employees'' See 2000e(f) (defining ''employee'' mean ''an individual employer''). Thus, nonetheless qualify 2000e(b)'s ''employer.'' Respondents contend, held here, within when This been adopted Eighth Circuit. Garden & Associates, Ltd., 956 842, 843 (1992). 8 Petitioners contend no different employee: generally called method,'' payroll. approved dictum Fifth Dumas Mount Vernon, 612 974, 979, n. (1980), First Thurber Jack Reilly's, 717 633, 634-635 (1983), cert. denied, 466 904, 104 1678, 80 153 (1984); see Vera-Lozano International Broadcasting, 50 67, 69-70 (C.A.1 1995) (reaffirming ). Age Discrimination 1967, defines precisely way does. 29 630(b); Notice N-915-052, Policy Guidance: Whether Part-Time Employees Are (Apr.1990), reprinted App. Pet. Cert. 30a-40a Guidance). Department Labor likewise Family Medical Leave ''employs workweeks 2611(4)(A)(i); CFR §§825.105(b)-(d) administration expressed preference Guidance, lacks rulemaking authority over issue, 2000e-12(a); Arabian Oil 499 244, 257, 111 1227, 1235, 113 274 (1991). 9 think represents language, sets number absence indication contrary, words statute assumed bear ''ordinary, meaning.'' Pioneer Investment Services Co. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 380, 388, 1489, 1495, 123 74 (1993) (internal quotation marks citation omitted). parlance, individual. New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1198 (def. 2: defining ''have'' ''[p]ossess certain relationship''); Heritage 828 (3d ed.1992) ''to occupy relation to''; giving example ''had great many disciples''); Webster's 1145 (2d ed.1950) ''[t]o possess, something appertains to, connected with, affects, one''; ungrateful son''). 10 contends asked how give answer performing possibly so. Language subtle enough thing ''have (as opposed day'') thought convey idea must But us urges interpretation even salaried working. Such so (few employers keep daily attendance records employees) Congress should prescribed language could meaning. own proposed focus ''How you day?'' rather unlike one, simply cannot derived possible text. B 11 rejected straightforward employees'' because supposed consequence added view, intended focus, required ''ha[ve] weeks,'' without further refinement those weeks. point force (though still produce Appeals' day) indeed ordinary rendered superfluous. Statutes interpreted, possible, word operative effect. Menasche, 348 528, 538-539, 75 513, 519-520, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955). do renders qualification, unclear departed middle week minimum week; clear not. Similarly, adjective ''working'' eliminates ambiguity depart end workweek, week, 12 mere exclusion purpose phrase. ''[I]nstances where begin Wednesdays Thursdays,'' said, ''are unlikely occur sufficient frequency merit inclusion federal anti-discrimination statute.'' F.3d, 1228. carving out special treatment (supposedly minuscule) class-as case day,'' unquestionably them not, least litigated. (Does ''in'' where, except last workday, 14? ''In'' hires new Saturday, nonworkday, next Monday? midweek, 14 quits replaced 14th employee?) decidedly view ''mere'' elimination evident ample-indeed, admirable-justification phrase; alone ''merit'' enactment here. Moreover, phenomenon mid-week commencement termination seems rare believed. businesses payday, hence hiring- firing-day, month than itself experienced arrivals departures roughly Brief pp. 10-11. 13 points adopt example, works irregular hours, perhaps few month, will every month. reduces problem eliminate entirely): long hour workweek. hand, own: A 5-day workweek covered, decides add Saturday less full complement employees, become exempt (despite ''larger'' business). Unsalaried same hours per counted, depending scheduled. half-time worker mornings counted; alternate neither provision can cause entirely accurate measure size business. event, ought reluctant practical basis deciding us. cove rage inquiry. Applying spend months poring registers, cards, diaries, time-keeping determine, 2-year period, work, salaries, holiday leave, vacation sick leave. histories period 7,800. problems compensation-based magnified ''compensated'' off ways cut holiday, vacation, If, accumulate seniority rights entitlements bonuses unpaid off, necessary determine (or litigate) ''receiving compensation'' determination. adopt, contrast, III As described, existence relationship, petitioners look first primarily appears challenge aspect approach; criterion. part, emphasize what ultimately critical payroll; traditional principles agency law, see, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Darden, 503 318, 323-324, 112 1344, 1348-1349, 117 581 (1992), ultimate 16 parties' stipulation concerning satisfied using correspond counting arrived these However, subtracting changes 47 which, according stipulation, leaves 38 adopt. Therefore, *** 18 judgment reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 19 It ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 499.

Category: 1