34:
451:(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.
409:. 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. 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). However, the Supreme Court's opinion did not explicitly mention public-sector workers. A later opinion,
516:"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.
515:
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
479:
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
395:
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
519:
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
378:. 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.
520:
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.
315:
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.
447:. 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
343:
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
480:
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.
491:
and agreed to hear the case on June 28, 2019. 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.
487:. In July 2018, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the ADEA, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims. Babb appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted her
953:
468:
958:
411:
744:
484:
963:
544:
82:
570:
968:
943:
319:
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. Groups like the
439:(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
444:
428:
371:
357:
304:
286:
169:
464:
948:
596:
973:
938:
685:
448:
375:
509:
770:
659:
400:, is now used by federal courts to interpret employment discrimination claims where no direct evidence of discriminatory intent can be found.
387:. 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
405:
361:
416:
38:
500:
Oral arguments in this case took place on
January 15, 2020. Babb was represented by Roman Martinez, an attorney with the law firm of
476:
365:
324:
718:
383:
397:
440:
436:
308:
300:
173:
978:
630:
443:; among other effects, this initiative allowed pharmacists who practiced DSM (including Babb) to receive a
857:
66:
548:
331:
on behalf of the plaintiff. The case also received some coverage due to a reference to the popular meme
77:
260:
Alito, joined by
Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Ginsburg (all but footnote 3)
822:
139:
501:
207:
893:
800:
488:
432:
118:
571:"Supreme Court to determine whether 'but-for' causation required in federal-sector ADEA claims"
920:
396:
reasons are pretextual or otherwise insufficient under the law. This framework, known as the
472:
345:
902:
540:
243:
223:
199:
771:"WHAT WEDNESDAY'S SUPREME COURT CASE COULD MEAN FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE"
505:
303:
in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the
211:
435:
in 2004. In 2009, Babb obtained an advanced designation which allowed her to practice
932:
460:
340:
328:
745:"High Court To Address The Muddled Mess Of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act"
336:
312:
235:
219:
191:
307:. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a
392:
231:
136:
826:
804:
339:
during the oral arguments. This case is also notable because it addressed a
332:
143:
122:
376:
employment discrimination against workers who are 40 years of age or older
911:
97:
172:
permits federal employees to sue over any adverse personnel action that
597:"BREAKING: Federal Workers Can Sue Over 'Any' Age Bias, Justices Rule"
57:
Noris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs
631:"In Age Bias Case, Justices Discuss 'O.K. Boomer' and Eggless Cakes"
391:
case, the Court established that plaintiffs must first establish a
686:"Justices to Review How Federal Workers Prove Job Bias Claims (1)"
719:"Argument preview: What counts as discrimination "based on" age?"
660:"Chief Justice Asks if 'OK, Boomer' Enough to Show Age Bias (1)"
427:
Noris Babb is a clinical pharmacist who started working for the
320:
475:, which the district court granted. The court found, under the
469:
United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida
33:
412:
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
485:
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
311:
in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing
954:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
889:, No. 18-882, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from:
483:Babb appealed the district court's decision to the
280:
272:
264:
256:
251:
180:
162:
108:
103:
93:
72:
62:
52:
45:
26:
403:In 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion on
381:In 1973, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in
959:United States employment discrimination case law
176:, even if age was not the determinating factor.
653:
651:
415:(2013) applied the same 'but for' standard to
8:
964:United States gender discrimination case law
429:United States Department of Veterans Affairs
372:Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
358:Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
305:Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
287:Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
170:Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
858:"A "view" from the courtroom: "OK, boomer""
465:United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs
565:
563:
561:
559:
557:
398:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis
23:
851:
849:
843:, 139 S. Ct. 2775 (2019).
712:
710:
708:
706:
624:
622:
620:
618:
969:United States public employment case law
818:Babb v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs
299:, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the
133:Babb v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs
944:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
529:
449:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
441:Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) system
431:(VA) at the CW Young Medical Center in
510:Solicitor General of the United States
717:Garden, Charlotte (January 8, 2020).
406:Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
362:Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
21:2020 United States Supreme Court case
16:2020 United States Supreme Court case
7:
743:Barnes, Patricia (October 4, 2019).
769:Moyler, Hunter (January 14, 2020).
471:. The Secretary filed a motion for
128:Affirmed in part, reversed in part
39:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
949:United States Supreme Court cases
658:Kanu, Hassan (January 15, 2020).
629:Liptak, Adam (January 15, 2020).
477:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
366:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
856:Walsh, Mark (January 15, 2020).
467:, was filed in July 2014 in the
384:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
32:
974:United States veterans case law
939:2020 in United States case law
684:Kanu, Hassan (June 28, 2019).
370:In 1968, Congress enacted the
1:
268:Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
921:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
504:. The VA was represented by
348:phase but not for a trial.
301:United States Supreme Court
995:
912:Oyez (oral argument audio)
355:
329:friend-of-the-court briefs
801: No. 8:14-cv-1732
285:
185:
167:
156:, 139 S. Ct. 2775 (2019).
31:
823:743 F. App'x 280
437:disease state management
374:(ADEA), which prohibits
803:, 2016 WL 4441652 (
459:Babb's lawsuit against
46:Argued January 15, 2020
48:Decided April 6, 2020
807: Aug. 23, 2016).
575:Employment Law Daily
502:Latham & Watkins
496:At the Supreme Court
174:is influenced by age
208:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
168:Section 633 of the
121:, 2016 WL 4441652 (
635:The New York Times
489:writ of certiorari
433:Bay Pines, Florida
417:retaliation claims
196:Associate Justices
389:McDonnell Douglas
335:by Chief Justice
309:motivating factor
292:
291:
986:
925:
919:
916:
910:
907:
901:
898:
892:
873:
872:
870:
868:
853:
844:
842:
836:
830:
820:
814:
808:
798:
796:Babb v. McDonald
792:
786:
785:
783:
781:
766:
760:
759:
757:
755:
740:
734:
733:
731:
729:
714:
701:
700:
698:
696:
681:
675:
674:
672:
670:
655:
646:
645:
643:
641:
626:
613:
612:
610:
608:
593:
587:
586:
584:
582:
567:
552:
534:
473:summary judgment
352:Legal background
346:summary judgment
181:Court membership
119:No. 8:14-cv-1732
115:Babb v. McDonald
36:
35:
24:
994:
993:
989:
988:
987:
985:
984:
983:
979:Ageism case law
929:
928:
923:
917:
914:
908:
905:
899:
896:
890:
882:
877:
876:
866:
864:
855:
854:
847:
838:
837:
833:
816:
815:
811:
794:
793:
789:
779:
777:
768:
767:
763:
753:
751:
742:
741:
737:
727:
725:
716:
715:
704:
694:
692:
683:
682:
678:
668:
666:
657:
656:
649:
639:
637:
628:
627:
616:
606:
604:
603:. April 6, 2020
595:
594:
590:
580:
578:
569:
568:
555:
551:___ (2020).
535:
531:
526:
498:
457:
455:In lower courts
425:
423:Case background
368:
356:Main articles:
354:
244:Brett Kavanaugh
234:
224:Sonia Sotomayor
222:
210:
200:Clarence Thomas
125:Aug. 23, 2016);
89:
88:140 S. Ct. 1168
47:
41:
22:
17:
12:
11:
5:
992:
990:
982:
981:
976:
971:
966:
961:
956:
951:
946:
941:
931:
930:
927:
926:
894:Google Scholar
887:Babb v. Wilkie
881:
880:External links
878:
875:
874:
845:
840:Babb v. Wilkie
831:
809:
787:
761:
735:
702:
676:
647:
614:
588:
577:. July 2, 2019
553:
537:Babb v. Wilkie
528:
527:
525:
522:
506:Noel Francisco
497:
494:
456:
453:
424:
421:
353:
350:
296:Babb v. Wilkie
290:
289:
283:
282:
278:
277:
274:
270:
269:
266:
262:
261:
258:
254:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
212:Stephen Breyer
197:
194:
189:
183:
182:
178:
177:
165:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:Babb v. Wilkie
149:Cert. granted
147:
126:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
95:
91:
90:
87:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
27:Babb v. Wilkie
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
991:
980:
977:
975:
972:
970:
967:
965:
962:
960:
957:
955:
952:
950:
947:
945:
942:
940:
937:
936:
934:
922:
913:
904:
895:
888:
884:
883:
879:
863:
859:
852:
850:
846:
841:
835:
832:
828:
824:
819:
813:
810:
806:
802:
797:
791:
788:
776:
772:
765:
762:
750:
746:
739:
736:
724:
720:
713:
711:
709:
707:
703:
691:
687:
680:
677:
665:
661:
654:
652:
648:
636:
632:
625:
623:
621:
619:
615:
602:
598:
592:
589:
576:
572:
566:
564:
562:
560:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
530:
523:
521:
517:
513:
511:
507:
503:
495:
493:
490:
486:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:Robert Wilkie
454:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
422:
420:
418:
414:
413:
408:
407:
401:
399:
394:
390:
386:
385:
379:
377:
373:
367:
363:
359:
351:
349:
347:
342:
341:circuit split
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
288:
284:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:Case opinions
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
195:
193:
190:
188:Chief Justice
187:
186:
184:
179:
175:
171:
166:
161:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
107:
102:
99:
98:Oral argument
96:
92:
85:
84:
79:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
40:
30:
25:
19:
886:
865:. Retrieved
861:
839:
834:
817:
812:
795:
790:
778:. Retrieved
774:
764:
752:. Retrieved
748:
738:
726:. Retrieved
722:
693:. Retrieved
689:
679:
667:. Retrieved
663:
638:. Retrieved
634:
605:. Retrieved
600:
591:
579:. Retrieved
574:
536:
532:
518:
514:
499:
482:
458:
426:
410:
404:
402:
388:
382:
380:
369:
337:John Roberts
318:
295:
294:
293:
281:Laws applied
239:
236:Neil Gorsuch
227:
220:Samuel Alito
215:
203:
192:John Roberts
153:
150:
132:
129:
114:
104:Case history
81:
56:
18:
867:January 16,
829: 2018).
780:January 16,
754:January 15,
728:January 16,
695:January 15,
669:January 16,
640:January 15,
581:January 16,
393:prima facie
265:Concurrence
232:Elena Kagan
933:Categories
862:SCOTUSBlog
723:SCOTUSBlog
539:, No.
524:References
63:Docket no.
827:11th Cir.
805:M.D. Fla.
690:Bloomberg
664:Bloomberg
445:promotion
333:OK boomer
144:11th Cir.
123:M.D. Fla.
73:Citations
885:Text of
775:Newsweek
607:April 6,
323:and the
257:Majority
151:sub nom.
137:F. App'x
130:sub nom.
94:Argument
313:but for
273:Dissent
163:Holding
924:
918:
915:
909:
906:
903:Justia
900:
897:
891:
825: (
821:,
799:,
749:Forbes
601:Law360
543:,
541:18-882
508:, the
463:, the
364:; and
327:filed
276:Thomas
242:
240:·
238:
230:
228:·
226:
218:
216:·
214:
206:
204:·
202:
146:2018);
135:, 743
67:18-882
547:
109:Prior
869:2020
782:2020
756:2020
730:2020
697:2019
671:2020
642:2020
609:2020
583:2020
549:U.S.
325:NTEU
321:AARP
83:more
78:U.S.
76:589
545:589
140:280
935::
860:.
848:^
773:.
747:.
721:.
705:^
688:.
662:.
650:^
633:.
617:^
599:.
573:.
556:^
512:.
419:.
360:;
117:,
871:.
784:.
758:.
732:.
699:.
673:.
644:.
611:.
585:.
142:(
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.