Shell Oil fired Charles T. Robinson, Sr. in 1991. Robinson then filed an EEOC charge alleging that Shell had discharged him because of his race. While that charge was pending, Robinson applied for another job, and the prospective employer contacted Shell for a reference. Robinson alleged that Shell gave a negative reference in retaliation for his EEOC charge.
Issue
Does the term "employees" in § 704(a) of Title VII include former employees, so that a discharged worker may sue a former employer for postemployment retaliation?
Rule
Section 704(a)'s use of the term "employees" is ambiguous as to whether it includes former employees. That ambiguity must be resolved by examining the statutory text in context, the broader structure of Title VII, and the antiretaliation provision's purpose of maintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms; under that analysis, former employees are included within § 704(a)'s coverage.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Maya Torres was fired by Desert Peak Logistics after complaining internally about sex discrimination and then filing a charge under Title VII. Two months later, when a prospective employer requested a reference, Desert Peak allegedly stated that Maya was "litigious" and should not be hired.
If Maya sues for retaliation under § 704(a), what is the strongest argument that her claim is covered?
Explanation. The majority held that "employees" in § 704(a) is ambiguous as to temporal scope. Looking to Title VII's broader context and the antiretaliation provision's purpose of maintaining unfettered access to remedial mechanisms, the term includes former employees, so postemployment retaliation such as a retaliatory reference is covered. (Derived from Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. (n.d.).)