Babb v. Wilkie | |
---|---|
Argued January 15, 2020 Decided April 6, 2020 | |
Full case name | Noris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs |
Docket no. | 18-882 |
Citations | 589 U.S. (more) 140 S. Ct. 1168 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Ginsburg (all but footnote 3) |
Concurrence | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg |
Dissent | Thomas |
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]