Babb v. Wilkie

Babb v. Wilkie
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
ArgumentOral 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]

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]

  1. ^ Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882, 589 U.S. ___ (2020).
  2. ^ "Supreme Court to determine whether 'but-for' causation required in federal-sector ADEA claims". Employment Law Daily. July 2, 2019. Archived from the original on July 7, 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. ^ a b 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. ^ 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.