In the case of Darlene Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court addressed an issue related to employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff, Darlene Walters, alleged that her employer had discriminated against her due to a disability and retaliated against her for filing a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, because she worked part-time and thus did not meet the minimum number of hours required by law for protection under Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions, lower courts dismissed her claim. On appeal to the Supreme Court though it was ruled that all employees are protected from retaliation regardless of their work hours or status as full- or part-time workers. This decision clarified that even if an employee is not eligible for substantive protections under Title VII due to insufficient working hours they still have procedural rights including protection from retaliation when asserting those rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Title VII’s 15-employee threshold was too narrow and failed to consider part-time employees or those who work intermittently throughout the year. The dissent believed that any individual who has an employment relationship with an employer should be counted towards this threshold, regardless of how many days they worked in a given week or year. This broader interpretation would better align with Congress' intent to protect workers from discrimination by covering as many employers as possible under Title VII. By limiting coverage only to employers who have at least 15 employees working each business day, the majority effectively excluded numerous small businesses from compliance with anti-discrimination laws and left their employees without legal protection against workplace discrimination.