In the case of United States Postal Service v. Maria A. Gregory, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Postal Service (USPS). The dispute arose when Maria A. Gregory was demoted from her managerial position at USPS due to misconduct and subsequently filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging racial and sexual discrimination. An EEOC administrative judge initially sided with Gregory but later reversed this decision after discovering that she had lied during her testimony about not having previously been disciplined by USPS for similar misconducts. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether an employee who lies during an internal investigation can still win a retaliation claim under Title VII of Civil Rights Act if they are punished for their dishonesty rather than their initial complaint about discrimination or harassment. The court held that punishing employees for lying during investigations does not constitute unlawful retaliation under Title VII because it is important to maintain honesty and integrity in such proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Postal Service v. Maria A. Gregory, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a provision in federal law that allows an employee to appeal a suspension of more than 14 days to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). He argued that this provision should not apply when an employer decides to impose two separate suspensions each less than 14 days but cumulatively exceeding it based on different incidents or infractions. According to him, such interpretation would allow employees who commit multiple infractions within short periods of time and receive separate punishments for each one, which collectively exceed 14 days, to escape accountability by appealing their cumulative punishment as if it were a single disciplinary action. This could potentially undermine employers' ability to maintain discipline among their workforce effectively.