The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 27, 2008, ruled on behalf of employees in two critical cases. The first case, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, dealt with a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which covers claims of retaliation that follow complaints about discrimination on the basis of age. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the 7-2 majority, stated that prior Supreme Court rulings and Congressional statutory text make clear that retaliation is covered in the provision of the 1866 law, which was first enacted just after the Civil War. Mr. Hedrick G. Humphries was fired as an associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaraunt in Bradley, IL, after he complained about race discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned a federal judge’s dismissal of Mr. Humphries retaliation claim (he also filed a discrimination claim that was not appealed), stating that he could pursue his retaliation claim under Section 1981.
Justice’s Thomas and Scalia, in their dissent, argued that it is unclear as to whether a claim for retaliation exists anywhere within the Congressional statutory text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Both Justice’s conclude that Section 1981(a) guarantees "[a]ll persons…the same right…to make and enforce contracts…as is enjoyed by white citizens." Justice Thomas, writing on behalf of Justice Scalia, interprets this to mean that, on its face, Section 1981(a), is a straightforward ban on racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, and that this is how the Court have always interpreted it to mean.
In the second case, Gomez-Perez v. Potter, the Court held that part of the major anti-age bias law covering federal employees also protects them from retaliation after complaining about discrimination. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority, concluded that a Postal Service employee could pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). The ADEA specifically bars reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination, but is silent as to whether it applies to federal employees. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston upheld a lower federal court’s dismissal of Ms. Gomez-Perez’s complaint that she suffered a "series of reprisals" from her supervisors. Justice Alito said that the law does indeed apply to both categories of employees, thus overturning the lower courts decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Scalia and Thomas in dissent of the majority. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "the statutory language and structure, as well as the fact that Congress has always protected federal employees from retaliation through the established civil service process, confirms that Congress did not intend federal employees to have a separate judicial remedy for retaliation under the ADEA." According to the Chief Justice, Congress recognized that regulation of the civil service is complex, and thus required remedies different from those of the private sector. This conclusion is primarily based on "conflicting policy considerations" and "balancing governmental efficiency and rights of employees."
In summary, businesses and the various federal government agencies need to be extremely careful not to discriminate against employees after they have filed complaints. This could possibly subject the business or federal agency to further litigation.
To read the full opinion of the first case, click here: CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries
To read the full opinion of the second case, click here: Gomez-Perez v. Potter