Babb v. Wilkie

Background

Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist at a VA medical center, sued after several personnel decisions while she was over 40: loss of an "advanced scope" affecting promotion eligibility, denied training and clinic positions, and a reassignment that reduced holiday pay. The VA told the trial court it had legitimate non-age reasons and the court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals upheld that result relying on prior precedent.

Reasoning

The Justices examined the ADEA federal-sector rule that says personnel actions affecting people 40 and older "shall be made free from any discrimination based on age." The Court read those words to mean that any differential treatment based on age taints a personnel decision even if age was not the but-for cause of the final outcome. However, the Court explained that to obtain outcome-based relief—such as reinstatement, backpay, or compensatory damages—a plaintiff must still show that age was a but-for cause of that employment outcome. When age played only a lesser part, courts can order injunctive or other forward-looking relief.

Real world impact

The ruling lets federal employees and applicants aged 40+ challenge decisions that were tainted by age consideration even when the final result would have been the same. But to get money awards or to undo a final hiring or promotion, they must prove age actually caused that result. The case is returned to the lower courts for further proceedings to determine violations and appropriate relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) emphasized that process-based claims and compensation for out-of-pocket costs might be appropriate; Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Court should have required but-for causation and warning of practical problems for federal hiring programs.