Babb v. Wilkie - 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020)

Rule:

The statute does not say that “it is unlawful to take personnel actions that are based on age;” it says that “personnel actions shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” 29 U.S.C.S. § 633a(a). As a result, age must be a but-for cause of discrimination -- that is, of differential treatment -- but not necessarily a but-for cause of a personnel action itself.

Facts:

Petitioner Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist at a U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) for, inter alia, age discrimination in various adverse personnel actions. The VA moved for summary judgment, offering nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions. The District Court granted the VA's motion after finding that petitioner had established a prima facie case, that the VA had proffered legitimate reasons for the challenged actions, and that no jury could reasonably conclude that those reasons were pretextual. On appeal, petitioner contended the District Court's requirement that age be a but-for cause of a personnel action was inappropriate under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The Eleventh Circuit found that petitioner's argument was foreclosed by Circuit precedent.

Issue:

Did 88 Stat. 74, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) - which provided that “personnel actions” affecting individuals aged 40 and older “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age” - impose liability only when age was a “but-for cause” of the personnel action in question? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the plain meaning of §633a(a) demanded that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age. To obtain reinstatement, damages, or other relief related to the end result of an employment decision, a showing that a personnel action would have been different if age had not been taken into account was necessary, but if age discrimination played a lesser part in the decision, other remedies may be appropriate. According to the Court, §633a(a) did not require proof that an employment decision would have turned out differently if age had not been taken into account and age had to be a but-for cause of discrimination, but not necessarily a but-for cause of a personnel action. Accordingly, the decision was reversed and the case was remanded.