Gomez-Perez v. Potter
Headline: Federal workers gain protection as Court holds federal ADEA ban on age discrimination also bars retaliation, allowing federal employees to sue when punished for complaining about age bias.
Holding: Section 633a(a) prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination.
- Allows federal employees to sue employers for retaliation under the ADEA.
- Increases litigation risk for federal agencies and managers.
- Resolves a split among appeals courts about federal ADEA retaliation.
Summary
Background
Myrna Gómez‑Pérez, a 45‑year‑old Postal Service clerk in Puerto Rico, asked for transfers, filed an internal age‑discrimination complaint, and says supervisors and coworkers then retaliated. She alleges meetings with groundless complaints, false harassment accusations, public shaming, and reduced hours. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Postmaster General; the First Circuit affirmed that the ADEA federal‑sector provision (§633a(a)) does not cover retaliation. The case reached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court compared §633a(a)’s ban on “discrimination based on age” to earlier rulings that read similar antidiscrimination language to include retaliation (Sullivan and Jackson). The majority concluded the phrase is functionally equivalent and reaches retaliation. It rejected the First Circuit’s attempts to distinguish Jackson, and it dismissed arguments based on the private‑sector anti‑retaliation clause (§623(d)), §633a(f), administrative practice, and sovereign immunity. The Court relied on §633a(a)’s text and the waiver in §633a(c), reversed the First Circuit, and remanded for further proceedings.
Real world impact
Federal employees who complain about age discrimination can bring retaliation claims under the ADEA federal‑sector provision. Federal agencies and managers may face more lawsuits alleging retaliation, and lower courts will apply this ruling on remand. This opinion resolves a split among circuits and is a legal rule, not a decision on the merits of Gómez‑Pérez’s specific retaliation facts.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Roberts (joined in part by Justices Scalia and Thomas) argued Congress intended administrative remedies for federal employees and that §633a’s text and structure do not create a judicial retaliation cause of action; Justice Thomas separately dissented.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?