Babb v. Wilkie

Last updated

Babb v. Wilkie
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 15, 2020
Decided April 6, 2020
Full case nameNoris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Docket no. 18-882
Citations589 U.S. ( more )
140 S. Ct. 1168
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior
  • Babb v. McDonald, No. 8:14-cv-1732, 2016 WL 4441652 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016);
  • Affirmed in part, reversed in part sub nom.Babb v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 743 F. App'x 280 (11th Cir. 2018);
  • Cert. granted sub nom.Babb v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2775 (2019).
Holding
Section 633 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 permits federal employees to sue over any adverse personnel action that is influenced by age, even if age was not the determinating factor.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Ginsburg (all but footnote 3)
ConcurrenceSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
DissentThomas
Laws applied
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. [1] However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision. [2] [3]

Contents

This case is notable due to the significant impact the ruling can have on age discrimination complaints made by federal workers in the United States. [4] Groups like the AARP and the NTEU filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the plaintiff. The case also received some coverage due to a reference to the popular meme OK boomer by Chief Justice John Roberts during the oral arguments. [4] [5] This case is also notable because it addressed a circuit split between different federal courts on this issue. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, federal courts have applied the 'but for' test to public-sector employees. Others, such as the Ninth Circuit, have held that a motivating factor test should be used during the summary judgment phase but not for a trial. [6]

In 1968, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against workers who are 40 years of age or older. It contains provisions covering both public- and private-sector workers. The private-sector provision forbids employers from discriminating against any individual because of age; the public-sector provision requires that employment decisions be made free from any discrimination based on age. [7]

In 1973, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green . This opinion was one of the first times the Supreme Court described in detail how the burden of proof works in discrimination cases. In the McDonnell Douglas case, the Court established that plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Next, the defendant (employer) has the opportunity to produce evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If the defendant/employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff who then must try to prove that the defendant's non-discriminatory reasons are pretextual or otherwise insufficient under the law. This framework, known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, is now used by federal courts to interpret employment discrimination claims where no direct evidence of discriminatory intent can be found. [2]

In 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. . In a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that private-sector plaintiffs must prove that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action they are suing over. [7] [2] That is, the plaintiff must prove that age discrimination was the determining reason for the adverse employment action (e.g. the action would not have been taken 'but for' the plaintiff's age). [8] However, the Supreme Court's opinion did not explicitly mention public-sector workers. [9] A later opinion, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013) applied the same 'but for' standard to retaliation claims.

Case background

Noris Babb is a clinical pharmacist who started working for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the CW Young Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida in 2004. In 2009, Babb obtained an advanced designation which allowed her to practice disease state management (DSM) - an advanced scope of practice which allowed her to prescribe medications for certain conditions without consulting a physician. In 2010, the VA created the Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) system; among other effects, this initiative allowed pharmacists who practiced DSM (including Babb) to receive a promotion. Babb, along with other pharmacists at the center, sought promotions under the new system. However, some of the pharmacists came to believe that the new requirements were being implemented in a discriminatory way. In 2011, two other pharmacists filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); Babb testified in support of these complaints. Additionally, Babb filed a complaint of her own in 2013 after management sought to remove Babb's advanced designations and denied her request for additional training or practice opportunities. In 2014, she filed a federal lawsuit against the VA, alleging that management at the medical center discriminated against her based on gender and age and also retaliated against her for protected EEOC-related activity. [7]

In lower courts

Babb's lawsuit against Robert Wilkie, the United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was filed in July 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Secretary filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. [10] The court found, under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, that Babb had succeeded in establishing her prima facie case for discrimination; that the Secretary had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for the VA's actions; and that Babb could not prove that the reasons provided were pretextual. Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the Secretary. The district court also dismissed Babb's hostile work environment claim, ruling the remarks that Babb noted in her complaint were not sufficiently severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. [7] [4]

Babb appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. [2] In July 2018, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the ADEA, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims. [11] [2] Babb appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted her writ of certiorari and agreed to hear the case on June 28, 2019. [12] They opted to limit their review to the issue of whether the federal-sector provision of the ADEA requires that the plaintiff prove that age was the 'but for' cause of the challenged action. [4] [5]

At the Supreme Court

Oral arguments in this case took place on January 15, 2020. [13] Babb was represented by Roman Martinez, an attorney with the law firm of Latham & Watkins. The VA was represented by Noel Francisco, the Solicitor General of the United States.

During the oral arguments, Babb's attorney Martinez emphasized the language of the ADEA and distinguished the wording used for public-sector employees from the wording used for private-sector employees. He noted that for public sector employees, the statute requires that employment decisions be made "free from" age-related bias, which he argued was broader in scope and meaning than the language used for private-sector employees under the ADEA. He argued that Congress's intent was to bar discrimination at any point in the employment process, even if the age-related discrimination was not the final determinative factor in the decision.

Arguing for the government, Francisco countered that the VA's interpretation of the statute would harmonize the rules for both public- and private-sector employees (imposing the 'but for' standard uniformly on all categories). In addition, he argued that other statutes such as the Civil Service Reform Act would offer the remedies that Babb was seeking under the ADEA. On January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court directed both parties to file supplemental briefs on what other judicial or administrative remedies would be available (other than the ADEA) to plaintiffs like Babb. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967</span> United States labor law

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is a United States labor law that forbids employment discrimination against anyone, at least 40 years of age, in the United States. In 1967, the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The ADEA prevents age discrimination and provides equal employment opportunity under the conditions that were not explicitly covered in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act also applies to the standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers, and requires that information concerning the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959, codified as Government Code §§12900 - 12996, is a California statute used to fight sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and housing, which was passed on September 18, 1959.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

<i>Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.</i> 2007 United States Supreme Court case

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009</span> Federal statute in the United States

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a landmark federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The act amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

<i>Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.</i> 2009 United States Supreme Court case

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, involving the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

<i>DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School</i> American legal case

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 was a discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment before his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws and that if it were, this case against it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The School also argued that DeMarco had failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

In the United States, all states have passed laws that restrict age discrimination, and age discrimination is restricted under federal laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). However, it is worthy of note that age discrimination is still an issue in employment as of 2019.

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning age discrimination in employment.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel, both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding religious liberty and employment accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) had established that an employer could deny an employee religious exemptions from work if they could show "undue hardship" in making the accommodation, a vague phrase at the center of Groff. The case was decided unanimously for Groff by the Court. While generally upholding Trans World, the court clarified that increased costs that are more than 'de minimis' are not sufficient to demonstrate 'undue hardship', and that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that granting the exemption would incur "substantial increased costs" compared to the normal costs of business.

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether its protections apply to job transfers, even where the transfer did not result in a "significant disadvantage."

References

  1. ↑ Babb v. Wilkie,No. 18-882 , 589 U.S. ___(2020).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Supreme Court to determine whether 'but-for' causation required in federal-sector ADEA claims". Employment Law Daily. July 2, 2019. Retrieved January 16, 2020.
  3. ↑ "BREAKING: Federal Workers Can Sue Over 'Any' Age Bias, Justices Rule". Law360. April 6, 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Liptak, Adam (January 15, 2020). "In Age Bias Case, Justices Discuss 'O.K. Boomer' and Eggless Cakes". The New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  5. 1 2 Kanu, Hassan (January 15, 2020). "Chief Justice Asks if 'OK, Boomer' Enough to Show Age Bias (1)". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 16, 2020.
  6. ↑ Kanu, Hassan (June 28, 2019). "Justices to Review How Federal Workers Prove Job Bias Claims (1)". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 15, 2019.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Garden, Charlotte (January 8, 2020). "Argument preview: What counts as discrimination "based on" age?". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved January 16, 2020.
  8. ↑ Barnes, Patricia (October 4, 2019). "High Court To Address The Muddled Mess Of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act". Forbes. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  9. ↑ Moyler, Hunter (January 14, 2020). "WHAT WEDNESDAY'S SUPREME COURT CASE COULD MEAN FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE". Newsweek. Retrieved January 16, 2020.
  10. ↑ Babb v. McDonald, No.8:14-cv-1732 , 2016 WL 4441652( M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016).
  11. ↑ Babb v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 743F. App'x280 ( 11th Cir. 2018).
  12. ↑ Babb v. Wilkie,139S. Ct.2775(2019).
  13. 1 2 Walsh, Mark (January 15, 2020). "A "view" from the courtroom: "OK, boomer"". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved January 16, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.