Supreme Court Rules for Federal Worker in Age Discrimination Suit

Government should meet a ‘higher standard than state and private employers,’ decision says

Getty Images

By:

Kenneth Terrell

En español

Published April 07, 2020

| A ruling from the Supreme Court Monday may make it easier for federal workers age 40 and older to win age discrimination lawsuits. The 8-1 decision is a victory for older adults who have seen their legal protections from bias erode over the past 10 years, but federal workers still may have to meet a strict standard to get some types of relief, such as back pay.

Since a Supreme Court ruling in 2009, older workers who sue for discrimination have had to prove that their age was the “but-for” cause, a legal term meaning that age was the only reason for the employer’s decision, not just one of perhaps several motivating factors. Previously, courts had held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only required workers to show that their age played some role in their employer’s considerations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling this week says the section of the ADEA that covers federal workers makes it clear that this group is protected from any level of workplace discrimination.

“That Congress would want to hold the federal government to a higher standard than state and private employers is not unusual,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The case, Babb v. Wilkie, could affect a sizable share of the nation's older workers. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States, with roughly 3 million employees nationwide, according to data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Nearly 70 percent of the government's full-time workers are age 40 and older, which means they are covered by the federal ADEA.

The lawsuit, involving a clinical pharmacist at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center in Bay Pines, Florida, started when the employee was denied several promotions, allegedly due to her age. Noris Babb asked the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that denied her claim. Babb contended that in 2010, the VA denied her application for a promotion in favor of younger workers. While her attorneys argued that she needed only to prove that age was a consideration (that is, “motivating factor") in the VA's decision to pass her over, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Babb was required to meet the but-for standard.

In an amicus brief it submitted to the Supreme Court, AARP Foundation said the federal government should live up to its legal obligation to protect its older employees and job applicants from age discrimination. AARP Foundation's brief argued that the motivating-factor standard fits better with the ADEA's strong language forbidding age bias in federal workplaces. The brief says that the 11th Circuit's ruling defied Congress’ goal to protect older federal employees when it amended the ADEA in 1974 to cover them.

"Regrettably, the United States seemingly elevates its narrow interests as an employer above its duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, by declining to defend [the law's] plainly-stated call for the government to ensure that it creates workplaces where ‘all personnel actions [are] made free from any discrimination,’" the brief states.

Editor’s note: This article originally was published on September 24, 2019. It has been updated with information about the Supreme Court’s rulings in Babb v. Wilkie and Rotkiske v. Klemm.

Kenneth Terrell covers employment, age discrimination, work and jobs, careers, and Congress for AARP. He previously worked for the Education Writers Association and U.S. News & World Report, where he reported on government and politics, business, education, science and technology, and lifestyle news.