Babb v. Wilkie's guest appearances

Babb v. Wilkie

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Oral Arguments for the Supreme Court of the United States

Audio Arguendo

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court Opinions

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Barton v. Barr

Nasrallah v. Barr

Allen v. Cooper

Egbert v. Boule

Henry Schein

Rotkiske v. Klemm

Mathena v. Malvo

Kansas v. Garcia

Lamone v. Benisek

Smith v. Berryhill

Taggart v. Lorenzen

Kisor v. Wilkie

Pereida v. Wilkinson

Guzman Chavez

Ted Cruz

OwlTail

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882, , 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. 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 end result of the employment decision.

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882, , 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. 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 end result of the employment decision.

Supreme Court Decision - Babb v. Wilkie

QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal employees' rights are determined under statutes which require that "all personnel actions effecting employees or applicants for employment ... in executive agencies as defined in Title 5 ... shall be made free from any discrimination ... " See 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-16(a) (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) (emphasis added); 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) (age). This Court, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), interpreted the private-sector statutory language "because" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and ''because of' in 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), respectively, as requiring a private-sector plaintiff to prove but-for causation. The question presented is: Whether "shall be made free from any discrimination" permits federal-sector personnel actions that are not made free from any discrimination or retaliation, as long as discrimination or retaliation is not the but-for cause of the personnel action, or rather prohibits personnel actions where discrimination and retaliation is a factor.  A subsidiary question is whether Title VII bans retaliation in federal employment.    ---   Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ 

QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal employees' rights are determined under statutes which require that "all personnel actions effecting employees or applicants for employment ... in executive agencies as defined in Title 5 ... shall be made free from any discrimination ... " See 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-16(a) (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) (emphasis added); 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) (age). This Court, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), interpreted the private-sector statutory language "because" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and ''because of' in 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), respectively, as requiring a private-sector plaintiff to prove but-for causation. The question presented is: Whether "shall be made free from any discrimination" permits federal-sector personnel actions that are not made free from any discrimination or retaliation, as long as discrimination or retaliation is not the but-for cause of the personnel action, or rather prohibits personnel actions where discrimination and retaliation is a factor.  A subsidiary question is whether Title VII bans retaliation in federal employment. --- Support this podcast: <a href="https://anchor.fm/scotus/support" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">https://anchor.fm/scotus/support</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★</a>

Case: 18-882 Babb v. Wilkie (2020-JAN-15)

Labor: Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act require a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action? - Argued: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:36:55 EDT

U.S. Supreme Court Babb v. Wilkie, Case No. 18-882

A case in which the Court held that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age, but but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy that may be obtained.