This Giving Tuesday, help ensure voters have the information they need to make confident, informed decisions. Donate now!

Babb v. Wilkie

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Babb v. Wilkie
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: January 15, 2020
Decided: April 6, 2020
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor • Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas


Babb v. Wilkie is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. It concerned the federal-sector provision (§633a(a)) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.

The court reversed and remanded the 11th Circuit's decision in an 8-1 ruling, holding the plain meaning of §633a(a) "indicates that the statute does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account." Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, "If age is a factor in an employment decision, the statute has been violated."[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Dr. Noris Babb, a pharmacist working at the VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) secretary, alleging age and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment. The Middle District of Florida rejected Babb's claims, granting summary judgment to the VA secretary. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling on Babb's gender discrimination claim and affirmed the district court's ruling on Babb's age discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. The court remanded the case. Babb petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing the 11th Circuit's decision disadvantaged federal employees bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.[2][3]
  • The issue: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any "discrimination based on age," 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.[4]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the 11th Circuit's decision in an 8-1 ruling, holding the plain meaning of §633a(a) "indicates that the statute does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account." Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, "If age is a factor in an employment decision, the statute has been violated."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 6, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the 11th Circuit's decision.
    • January 15, 2020: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 7, 2019: Noris Babb, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • July 16, 2018: The 11th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Middle District of Florida's ruling. The 11th Circuit remanded the case to the district court.

    Background

    In 2013, Dr. Noris Babb, a pharmacist at the C.W. "Bill" Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging age and gender discrimination. In 2014, Babb sued the secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), alleging she (1) faced discrimination for gender and age, (2) faced retaliation for participating in EEOC complaints, and (3) was subjected to a hostile work environment. The alleged actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.[2]

    The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to the VA secretary. Babb appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit court reversed the district court's ruling on Babb's gender discrimination claim and affirmed the district court's ruling on Babb's age discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. The court remanded the case.[2]

    Babb petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing, "At the current time, Federal employees filing retaliation claims under Title VII and ADEA face differing standards of proof." Babb argued the 11th Circuit's decision would place "a more difficult burden of proof" on federal employees filing Title VII and ADEA claims and would result in "lost potential injunctive rights" for federal employees.[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:

    Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any "discrimination based on age," 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.[4]

    Outcome

    In an 8-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, holding the plain meaning of §633a(a) "indicates that the statute does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account."[1]

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “ The straightforward meaning of §633a(a)'s terms is that the statute does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account. Instead, if age is a factor in an employment decision, the statute has been violated. [5] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ I join the majority opinion because I agree that 29 U. S. C. §633a imposes liability even when age is not a ' "but-for cause" ' of a personnel action. Ante, at 1. I write separately to make two observations.

    First, the Court does not foreclose §633a claims arising from discriminatory processes. Cf. Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African American-Owned Media, ante, p. ___ (GINSBURG, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). If, for example, an employer hires a 50-year-old person who passed a computer-aptitude test administered only to applicants above 40, clearly a question could arise as to whether the hiring decision was 'made free from' differential treatment.

    Second, this same example may suggest that §633a permits damages remedies, even when the Government engages in nondispositive 'age discrimination in the "ma[king]" of a personnel decision.' Ante, at 10. If an applicant incurs costs to prepare for the discriminatorily administered aptitude test, a damages award compensating for such out-of-pocket expenses could restore the applicant to the 'position tha[t] he or she would have enjoyed absent discrimination.' Ante, at 14. [5]

    		”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ Until now, the rule for pleading a claim under a federal antidiscrimination statute was clear: A plaintiff had to plausibly allege that discrimination was the but-for cause of an adverse action, unless the statute’s text unequivocally replaced that standard with a different one. Today, however, the Court departs from this rule, concluding that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) imposes liability if an agency’s personnel actions are at all tainted by considerations of age. See ante, at 1. This rule is so broad that a plaintiff could bring a cause of action even if he is ultimately promoted or hired over a younger applicant. This novel 'any consideration' standard does serious damage to our interpretation of antidiscrimination statutes and disrupts the settled expectations of federal employers and employees. I therefore respectfully dissent. [5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]


    Transcript


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Babb v. Wilkie, decided April 6, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Babb v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, decided July 16, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Babb v. Wilkie: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed July 1, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Babb v. Wilkie: "Questions presented," accessed July 1, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Babb v. Wilkie," argued January 15, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Babb_v._Wilkie&oldid=9117276"