In the case of Charles T. Robinson, Sr. v. Shell Oil Company (1996), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether former employees are protected from retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The dispute arose when Robinson filed a charge against Shell for racial discrimination after his termination in 1991; subsequently he applied for a job at another company whereupon Shell gave him an unfavorable reference leading to his rejection by that potential employer. Robinson then sued Shell alleging retaliatory action due to his previous charges against them under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision which protects "employees" from such actions but does not explicitly include "former employees". The lower courts ruled in favor of Shell stating that this protection did not extend to ex-employees. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it unanimously reversed these decisions ruling that within context and purpose of Title VII legislation 'employee' should be interpreted broadly enough to cover past as well as current workers thereby extending its protections accordingly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Charles T. Robinson, Sr. v. Shell Oil Company argued that the majority's interpretation of Title VII was too broad and not consistent with Congressional intent when it enacted the law. The dissenters believed that Title VII was designed to protect current employees from discrimination, not former ones seeking references for new employment opportunities elsewhere. They pointed out that if Congress had intended to include former employees under its protection, they could have explicitly done so in their drafting of the legislation but chose not to do so instead. Therefore, according to this view, Shell Oil should be allowed to give a negative reference for Mr.Robinson without being accused of violating anti-discrimination laws because he is no longer an employee at their company.