How Justice Alito Signaled Defeat for DOJ in Key Age-Bias Case
During oral arguments, Alito told U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco: "I have a terrible time fitting your argument into the statutory language."
April 06, 2020 at 02:56 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
There are rare moments in oral arguments when a U.S. Supreme Court justice's statement becomes a "make or break" sign for an advocate's case. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. signaled the government's defeat during such a moment in a key job bias case the court decided on Monday—and written by Alito.
The moment came during arguments Jan. 15 in the case Babb v. Wilkie, a dispute involving federal employment and claims of age discrimination. Alito told U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco: "I have a terrible time fitting your argument into the statutory language."
In the 8-1 decision Monday, Alito, no supporter of broad interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws, rejected the Justice Department's textual argument that federal employers are liable for age discrimination only when age is a "but-for" cause of a final employment decision. The federal sector provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act goes further than the government's argument, Alito said in Monday's decision.
"The plain meaning of the critical statutory language ('made free from any discrimination based on age') demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age," Alito wrote. "If age discrimination plays any part in the way a decision is made, then the decision is not made in a way that is untainted by such discrimination." The statute, he said, "does not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account," he concluded.
The "but-for" rule has become a default in many high court discrimination cases. On March 23, the court unanimously applied the rule to a race discrimination suit. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an opinion concurring in the judgment, acknowledged in a footnote that the court's precedents establish that form of causation as the default rule in the §1981 context, but, she wrote, "I have previously explained that a strict but-for causation standard is ill suited to discrimination cases and inconsistent with tort principles."
Alito has joined the majority or written majority opinions in those "but-for" cases. Those opinions, until recently, generally have divided the justices along ideological lines. The standard was injected into the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in a 2009, 5-4 decision that Alito joined in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissenter in Monday's Babb decision, wrote the majority opinion in the Gross case holding plaintiffs to the more stringent standard of proof than plaintiffs pursuing claims under the other major federal anti-discrimination statutes.
The dissenters in Gross, led by the late Justice John Paul Stevens, castigated the majority for deciding an issue the parties had not raised. The majority decision never reached the question on which review had been granted and which had been briefed by the parties.
In the Babb case, Latham & Watkins partner Roman Martinez, counsel to Dr. Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, had argued that language in the federal age-bias law—"made free from any discrimination"—applies to the entire decision-making process, not just the final decision.
"Today's decision vindicates the essential principle that discrimination has no place in federal employment," Martinez said. "As the court explained in its well-reasoned and thorough opinion, the law requires that federal personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age."
The court's ruling holds the federal government to a stricter standard than private employers or state and local governments under the federal ADEA.
The but-for cause rule, however, still comes into play if plaintiffs seek the general remedies for a challenged personnel action, according to the court. To obtain general forms of relief, including hiring, reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages, a plaintiff still must show that age was a but-for cause of the actual challenged employment decision, "but if age discrimination played a lesser part in the decision, other remedies may be appropriate," such as injunctions and other steps to cleanse the workplace of age discrimination.
In his Babb dissent, Thomas said the majority's rule was "unworkable" and inconsistent with the text of the federal age-bias law.
"Today's decision is inconsistent with the default rule underlying our interpretation of antidiscrimination statutes and our precedents, which have consistently applied that rule." Thomas wrote. "Perhaps just as important, the court's holding unnecessarily risks imposing hardship on those tasked with managing thousands of employees within our numerous federal agencies."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
A Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250