On February 27, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., dismissing plaintiff Syed Alam's Title VII retaliation suit against an affiliate of his former employer on the grounds that Alam failed to allege that he was ever employed by or sought employment with the affiliate, and that the affiliate was not an agent of his former employer.

In 2005, Alam filed an employment discrimination claim against Miller Brewing, his former employer, which was settled the following year. Alam later approached MillerCoors, a joint venture between Miller Brewing and Coors Brewing Company, about developing software for MillerCoors and its distributors. However, after Alam had completed two months' work on the project, a MillerCoors director informed Alam that he would no longer work or meet with him due to Alam's prior lawsuit against Miller Brewing. After obtaining a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, Alam filed suit against Miller Brewing and MillerCoors, alleging retaliation under Title VII.

The district court granted summary judgment for both defendants, holding that:

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit noted that Title VII's anti-retaliation provisions protect former, current and prospective employees, yet Alam did not allege that he ever applied for employment or was employed with MillerCoors. Instead, the court found, Alam's undisputed status with respect to MillerCoors was that of an independent contractor, a classification unprotected by Title VII. However, Alam argued that MillerCoors was nonetheless his employer under Title VII because MillerCoors acted as Miller Brewing's agent in carrying out its alleged retaliatory acts, relying on language in Title VII that defines an employer as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees . . . and any agent of such a person."

The Seventh Circuit noted that other courts have found agency liability where:

The court rejected Alam's argument, finding none of these theories of liability applicable because Alam was seeking a business relationship with MillerCoors as an independent contractor, not an employee. In the absence of an employment relationship, the court concluded, Alam failed to establish MillerCoors' agency liability.

Although Alam had unsuccessfully argued before the district court that MillerCoors was also subject to affiliate liability stemming from its relationship with Miller Brewing, the Seventh Circuit noted that Alam did not challenge the district court's conclusion on this issue on appeal. The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the district court's finding that Alam failed to exhaust administrative remedies against Miller Brewing.