Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
519 U.S. 202, 117 S. Ct. 660, 136 L. Ed. 2d 644 (1997)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Darlene Walters (plaintiff) worked for Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc. (Metropolitan) (defendant). In 1990, Walters filed a complaint against Metropolitan with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff), alleging sex discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Shortly thereafter, Metropolitan fired Walters, prompting the EEOC to sue Metropolitan for unlawful retaliation. Walters intervened in the suit. Metropolitan moved to dismiss, arguing that it was not subject to Title VII because it did not qualify as an employer, which the act defined as a person who has 15 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more weeks of the current year or the previous year. Walters conceded that Metropolitan did not meet the 15-employee threshold in 1989 but argued that it did meet that threshold in 1990. During 1990, Metropolitan had 15 to 17 employees on its payroll for each working day most weeks of the year. However, Metropolitan compensated 15 or more employees for each working day of only nine weeks that year because two employees worked four days most weeks. Metropolitan argued that whether an employer “has” an employee on a particular workday depends on whether the employer is compensating the employee for that day, meaning that Metropolitan did not qualify as an employer under Title VII. The district court agreed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

