of the term “employees” as used in Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. In short, we are completely unpersuaded by their analyses, which depend for their substance on broad policy arguments which are simply not supported by the plain language of Title VII. III. Although extending Title VII to cover former employees is tantalizing fruit, our judicial inquiry must cease when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous. Such is the rule of law. 9th Cir.1982), overruled on other grounds by Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F.2d 1477, 1481-82 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc); Pantchenko v. C.B. Dolge Co., 581 F.2d 1052, 1055 (2d Cir.1978); Rutherford v. American Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 1977); Dunlop v. Carriage Carpet Co., 548 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Cf. EEOC v. J.M. Huber Corp., 927 F.2d 1322,
holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship holding employee under fair labor standard acts antiretaliation provision includes former employees holding that application of fair labor standards act flsa to transportation employees employed by local government does not contravene the commerce clause because labor conditions of those employees affect interstate commerce holding employees under adeas parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship