Discrimination provision expanded to cover former workers.

Federal civil rights laws protect former--not just current--workers from retaliation by employers who have been charged with discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

Business leaders said the February 18 decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. will chill employers' ability to give honest job references about their workers. Employee rights attorneys said any other conclusion by the Court would have eviscerated discrimination laws, making it easy for corporations to discriminate.

At issue in Robinson was whether a former employee is covered by the retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Charles Robinson Sr., an African American sales representative for Shell Oil Co., filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming the company fired him in 1991 because of his race. When Robinson applied for another job, he found out that Shell gave a negative job reference to the potential employer. Robinson filed a second EEOC complaint, charging that the company's action amounted to retaliation for his first complaint.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, which had ruled Robinson was not protected by Title VII because he no longer worked for Shell. Most other circuit courts have held that a former worker is protected from retaliation, and the High Court's Robinson decision settled the issue. (117 S. Ct. 843 (1997).)

"Had this decision not come down the way it did, it would have had a chilling effect on people filing discrimination claims," said Gary Phelan, a New Haven, Connecticut, attorney who handles employee discrimination claims. "It would have given a license to employers to bad-mouth employees who file discrimination suits against them."

Senior EEOC attorney John Suhre said the commission is pleased with the result, adding that the decision affirms protection for former workers and the entire work force.

"[The decision] not only affects individuals who file charges of discrimination against a former employer but also people who support the claimants, such as coworkers," Suhre said. "The employer can't hold the threat of firing over the heads of people who may testify on behalf of a claimant."

Suhre added that the ruling will extend to claims filed for discrimination based on age, sex, or disability. The EEOC filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Robinson's position.

Richard Samp, who is chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, a probusiness group, said the decision provides employers with "one more reason not to give honest references."

Attorney Phelan viewed the situation differently. "Hopefully, the flip side of this `chilling effect' will be more accurate job references."

Suhre said that even before Robinson, many employers gave only minimal information about former workers in job references. "The main reason for that is the state defamation laws, not Title VII."