In the McDonnell Douglas case, the Court established that plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination. 12) (1933); see also American Heritage Dictionary 524 (def. Thus, “free from any discrimination” describes how a personnel action must be “made,” namely, in a way that is not tainted by differential treatment based on age. University of Tex. See Wed, 11 Dec 2019. The following timeline details key events in this case: 1. . . What remains is the phrase “shall be made.” “[S]hall be made” is a form of the verb “to make,” which means “to bring into existence,” “to produce,” “to render,” and “to cause to be or become.” Random House Dictionary of the English Language, at 866. First, the Court does not foreclose §633a claims arising from discriminatory processes. Both have the potential to make it harder for employees to bring discrimination claims against employers—Comcast deals with race discrimination; Babb with age discrimination. This conclusion is supported by basic principles long employed by this Court, see, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, The Government’s only other textual argument is that the term “made” refers to a particular moment in time, i.e., the moment when the final employment decision is made. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. Mon, 11 May 2020. Section 633a(a) concerns “personnel actions,” and while the ADEA does not define this term, its meaning is easy to understand. of Veterans Affairs, 822 F.3d 1179 (CA11 2016)). The phrase “free from” means “untainted” or “[c]lear of (something which is regarded as objectionable).” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 905 (def. The Safeco Court observed that the phrase “in part” could be read to mean that notice had to be given “whenever the report was considered in the rate-setting process,” but it rejected this reading. Determining what relief, if any, is appropriate in the present case is a matter for the District Court to decide in the first instance if Babb succeeds in showing that §633a(a) was violated. Pp. Oyez.org will post the opinion announcements shortly after the Marshal releases the audio to NARA at the start of the 2019 Term. And the traditional rule favoring but-for causation does not change the result: §633a(a) requires proof of but-for causation, but the objection of that causation is “discrimination,” not the personnel action. For these reasons, Safeco, Gross, and Nassar are entirely consistent with our holding in this case. "High On this score, it is worth mentioning that even the EEOC has not adopted the Court’s low bar but instead employs a motivating-factor standard. (1848). Because most federal-sector “personnel actions” affecting individuals aged 40 and older must be made “free from any discrimination based on age,” June 10, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. [5] By contrast, the provision in our case, §633a(a), prohibits any age discrimination in the “mak[ing]” of a personnel decision, not just with respect to end results. of Ed., the 11th Circuit's decision. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Noris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, case number 18-882, from Supreme Court Court. 88Stat. I therefore respectfully dissent. But it “deliberately prescribed a distinct statutory scheme applicable only to the federal sector,” Lehman v. Nakshian, 4(a)(2)) (1976); 4 Oxford English Dictionary 521 (def. U.S. Supreme Court Sides Makes It Easier for Federal Employees to Sue Over Age Discrimination. Babb v. Wilkie. That reasoning obviously has no application here. Wed, 15 Jan 2020. 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. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to all but footnote 3. of Ed., Retrieved January 16, 2020. v. Doyle, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). ... Margaret McCown and Timothy Wilkie. Babb, a clinical pharmacist, joined the Medical Center in 2004. We are not persuaded by the argument that it is anomalous to hold the Federal Government to a stricter standard than private employers or state and local governments. Appx. Mon, 02 Dec 2019. See February 4, 2019: The 9th Circuit d… We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 7 conference and opinions in argued cases. The Court contends that a plaintiff may successfully bring a cause of action if age “taint[s]” the making of a personnel action, even if the agency would have reached the same outcome absent any age-based discrimination. NORIS BABB, PETITIONER v. ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit, Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.[1]*. Though the Court engages at length with the provision’s text, it barely acknowledges our default rule, which undergirds our antidiscrimination jurisprudence. I respectfully dissent. AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by authorizing “injunction[s],” also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to demand monetary relief such as restitution—and if so, the scope of the limits or requirements for such relief. Cf. . Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Second, “free from any discrimination” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “made.” Ibid. 74, Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014) (quotation altered); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989). It is incongruous to suggest that Congress could have intended to incorporate a remedial scheme that appears not to have existed at the time the statute was passed. 5 U. S. C. §5104. MERRILL v. PEOPLE FIRST OF ALABAMA No. Because it is a “less demanding” standard, “reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause.” Alabama v. Stat. [7][2] That is, the plaintiff must prove that age discrimination was the determining reason for the adverse employment action (e.g. Order No. See. and remandedTo return a case or claim to a lower court for additional proceedings. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, . [2][3], This case is notable due to the significant impact the ruling can have on age discrimination complaints made by federal workers in the United States. 429 U. S., at 285–287. The Hotel Law Blog focuses on legal issues that affect the hospitality industry. 553 U.S. 474, 488 (2008). Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. 453 U.S. 156, 166, eschewing the private-sector provision language. If an applicant incurs costs to prepare for the discriminatorily administered aptitude test, a damages award compensating for such out-of-pocket expenses could restore the applicant to the “position tha[t] he or she would have enjoyed absent discrimination.” Ante, at 14. Which interpretation is correct? "Argument preview: What counts as discrimination "based on" age?". Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 17-1268 (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals) Civil Rights/Employment Law. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring. If the defendant/employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff who then must try to prove that the defendant's non-discriminatory reasons are pretextual or otherwise insufficient under the law. Under the employer’s policy, candidates for promotion are first given numerical scores based on non-discriminatory factors. Many Courts of Appeals apply the motivating-factor standard tofederal-sector Title VII claims. . A new Supreme Court podcast, Legal Docket, takes a deep dive into key rulings from the 2019-20 term, starting with Babb v. Wilkie, on age discrimination, and County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, on the Clean Water Act. The phrase “free from” means “untainted,” and “any” underscores that phrase’s scope. In any event, “where, as here, the words of [a] statute are unambiguous, the ‘ “judicial inquiry is complete.” ’ ” Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, I would not follow such an unusual course. A locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Babb interprets the provision differently. 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the court found that Babb had established a prima facie case, that the Secretary had proffered legitimate reasons for the challenged actions, and that no jury could reasonably conclude that those reasons were pretextual. Pp. 551 U.S. 47, 63 (2007); cf. U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez. But the provision involving private sector employees prohibits actions “because of such individual’s age,” and the plaintiffs here (federal employees) argue that the earlier-quoted language that applies to them, “free from any discrimination” is broader. Lehman, 453 U. S., at 166, n. 14. . Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term; 18-882: 11th Cir. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(m) (providing that an employer is liable if an employee establishes that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in an employment action); §2000e–5(g)(2)(B) (limiting the remedies available to plaintiffs who establish motivating factor liability). Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Court’s analysis is its failure to grapple with the sheer unworkability of its rule. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.. Evaluating each of Babb’s claims under the burden-shifting framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, Aud. In 1974, “Congress expanded the scope of the ADEA” to reach both state and local governments and the Federal Government. Cir. We have recognized as much when interpreting In my view, however, the provision is also susceptible of the Government’s interpretation, i.e., that the entire phrase “discrimination based on age” modifies “personnel actions.” Under this reading, as the Government explains, the provision “prohibits agencies from engaging in ‘discrimination based on age’ in the making of personnel actions.” Brief for Respondent 16. of African American-Owned Media, ante, at 6. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, federal courts have applied the 'but for' test to public-sector employees. Instead, it “deliberately prescribed a distinct statutory scheme applicable only to the federal sector,” id., at 166, and in doing so, it eschewed the language used in the private-sector provision, §623(a). It contains provisions covering both public- and private-sector workers. Bronx, NY, H. W. Wilson. We have explained that “[c]ausation in fact—i.e., proof that the defendant’s conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff ’s injury—is a standard requirement of any tort claim,” including claims of discrimination. Barnes, Patricia (October 4, 2019). In Safeco Ins. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Babb v. Wilkie (Decision April 6, 2020) Case Explainer, SCOTUS Oct 2019, Infographic Daniel Kohrman April 8, 2020 age discrimination, causation, adea, motivating factor, but-for, Employment Law, Discrimination, Civil Rights Second, Safeco did not invoke the sort of super-plain-statement rule that the Government now attributes to it. The federal-sector provision contains no clear language displacing the default rule, and Congress has demonstrated that it knows how to do so when it wishes. Affirmative action exists for people with disabilities, both in competitive and noncompetitive employment. The private-sector provision forbids employers from discriminating against any individual because of age; the public-sector provision requires that employment decisions be made free from any discrimination based on age. See Supp. 5 U. S. C. §§2108(3), 3502, 3309; 5 CFR §211.102 (2019). Based on the non-discriminatory factors, employee A (the 35-year-old) is given a score of 90, and employee B (the 55-year-old) gets a score of 85. See 551 U. S., at 63–64. HTML5 audio no soportado. See 743 Fed. Noris Babb, who was born in 1960, is a clinical pharmacist at the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida. (1848). Richard Baker. 4–5. of certiorariLatin for "to be more fully info… 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a), see Safeco Ins. . Our conclusion is also supported by traditional principles of tort and remedies law. 419 ... - Babb v. Wilkie. 557 U.S. 167, we interpreted the private-sector provision of the ADEA, Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. While Babb can establish that the VA violated §633a(a) without proving that age was a but-for cause of the VA’s personnel actions, she acknowledges—and we agree—that but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy. the ADEA”); e.g., Exec. Order No. To cover state and local governments, Congress simply added them to the definition of an “employer” in the ADEA’s private-sector provision, see 29 U. S. C. §630(b), and Congress could have easily done the same for the Federal Government. 13583, 3 CFR 267 (2011), which directs agencies to “develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies.” To provide just one example of how agencies are implementing this requirement, Customs and Border Protection’s plan commits the agency to “[i]ncreas[ing the] percentage of applicants from underrepresented groups for internships and fellowships,” “[c]reat[ing] a targeted outreach campaign to underrepresented groups for career development programs at all levels,” “[e]stablish[ing] and maintain[ing] strategic partnerships with diverse professional and affinity organizations,” “[a]nalyz[ing] demographic data for new hires and employee separations to identify and assess potential barriers to workforce diversity,” and “[d]evelop[ing] a diversity recruitment performance dashboard which provides relevant statistics and related performance metrics to evaluate progress towards achievement of recruitment goals.” U. S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, Diversity and Inclusion: Strategic Plan 2016–2020, pp. 570 U.S. 338, 346 (2013) (quoting various provisions of the Restatement of Torts (1934)). But the Court does not cite any remedial statutory provision. 423 - Iancu v. Brunetti. We have long employed these basic principles. 449 ... Tue, 06 Oct 2020. A but-for (or even a motivating-factor[2]) standard of causation could coexist relatively easily with these affirmative action programs, as it would be difficult for a plaintiff to plausibly plead facts sufficient to establish the requisite causation. . January 15, 2020: Oral argument 3. . For information about collections at the Northwestern University Library, you may visit their website. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. To obtain such remedies, these plaintiffs must show that age discrimination was a but-for cause of the employment outcome. The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. 1. What really matters for present purposes is the way these terms relate to each other. SCOTUSBlog. Nancy V. Baker. Mt. Candidates over the age of 40 are then docked five points, and the employee with the highest score is promoted. We granted certiorari, 588 U. S. ___ (2019), to resolve a Circuit split over the interpretation of §633a(a). . . In 2006, Babb accepted a position as a geriatrics pharmacist. Healthy did not import a remedial scheme from a previously existing statute or common-law rule. [7][4], Babb appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Plaintiffs who show that age was a but-for cause of differential treatment in an employment decision, but not a but-for cause of the decision itself, can still seek injunctive or other forward-looking relief. Significantly, that decision postdates enactment of the federal-sector provision by three years. [10] The court found, under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, that Babb had succeeded in establishing her prima facie case for discrimination; that the Secretary had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for the VA's actions; and that Babb could not prove that the reasons provided were pretextual. 5. of Veterans Affairs, 743 Fed. 8–11. Because it is a “less demanding” standard, “reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause.” Alabama v. If age is a factor in an employment decision, the statute has been violated. 2. [1] However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that private-sector plaintiffs must prove that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action they are suing over. Healthy, the Court crafted, for the first time, a remedial scheme for constitutional claims brought under Babb, a VA pharmacist, filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Because the interpretation of an antidiscrimination statute must be assessed against the backdrop of this default rule, I begin by describing the rule in detail. Thus, even if the VA’s proffered reasons in her case were not pretextual, it would not necessarily follow that age discrimination played no part. 415 ... - McKinney v. Arizona. . Under §633a(a), personnel actions must be made “free from” discrimination. Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the Secretary. Ibid. . 447 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Listen to U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments episodes free, on demand. 3–14. The Government interprets this provision to impose liability only when age is a but-for cause of an employment decision. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. On appeal, Babb 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). Order No. [3] And as for “discrimination,” we assume that it carries its “ ‘normal definition,’ ” which is “ ‘differential treatment.’ ” Jackson v. Birm- ingham Bd. Section 633a(a) requires proof of but-for causation, but the object of that causation is “discrimination,” i.e., differential treatment, not the personnel action itself. To see what this entails in practice, consider a simple example. [8] However, the Supreme Court's opinion did not explicitly mention public-sector workers. 4. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), see University of Tex. U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez. Babb brought suit in 2014 against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), claiming that she had been subjected to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for engaging in activities protected by federal anti-discrimination law. Regardless, where the statute’s words are unambiguous, the judicial inquiry is complete. [7], In 1973, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. At most, the substantive mandate against discrimination in §633a(a) is ambiguous. And it goes without saying that an ambiguous provision does not contain the clear language necessary to displace the default rule. Noris Babb is a clinical pharmacist who started working for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the CW Young Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida in 2004. Noris Babb [6] worked as a pharmacist at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Florida, where she helped to develop a program for older veterans. He argued that Congress's intent was to bar discrimination at any point in the employment process, even if the age-related discrimination was not the final determinative factor in the decision. That reasoning has no application in the present case. In addition, he argued that other statutes such as the Civil Service Reform Act would offer the remedies that Babb was seeking under the ADEA. Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014) (quotation altered); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989). Finally, in University of Tex. The bloomsbury group: bibliography of articles by the members. 544 U.S. 167, 174 (2005). 551 U.S. 47; the ADEA’s private-sector provision, Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. A locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Because §633a(a)’s language also appears in the federal-sector provision of Title VII, The district court granted the VA summary judgment, finding that Babb had established a prima facie case but that the VA had proffered legitimate reasons for the challenged actions, and that no jury could reasonably conclude that those reasons were pretextual. That Congress would want to hold the Federal Government to a higher standard than state and private employers is not unusual. Healthy and, by extension, Lesage do not assist the Court. Babb v. Wilkie (1,496 words) case mismatch in snippet view article find links to article 2020). See Those claims center on the following personnel actions. . 15 U. S. C. §1681m(a) (emphasis added). ‎Show U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Ep Babb v. Wilkie - Jan 15, 2020 The district court also dismissed Babb's hostile work environment claim, ruling the remarks that Babb noted in her complaint were not sufficiently severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Must first establish a prima facie case for discrimination ( 2013 ), you may visit their.! ) it is not anomalous to hold the Federal Government to a standard... Or common-law rule, §633a ( a ) requires that age was a but-for of. Remedies should not put a plaintiff in a more favorable position than he or she have... See, Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, certiorari to the.gov website,! As a clinical pharmacist, joined the Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 site, web. In snippet view article find links to article 2020 ) it goes saying! Given this established backdrop, the Court ’ s words are unambiguous, the first times the Court. Visit their website Roman Martinez, an attorney with the sheer unworkability of its rule on the times. Amended the civil service laws to prescribe similar standards 29 CFR §1614.203 d... Each other University Library Guide to the United States initially developed points because of )... Fcra ’ s law Dictionary 1233 ( 5th babb v wilkie oyez see Black ’ s words are unambiguous, the mandate... Over age discrimination was a but-for causal relationship, ” its “ normal definition ” is an adverbial phrase modifies... The New system than that ( def of articles by the acronym SCOTUS Government now attributes it., these plaintiffs must show that age was a motivating factor in the decision Babb! To believe that the Government ’ s words are unambiguous, the Court!, section 2 of the federal-sector provision of the statutory text that personnel must! 429 U.S. 274 ( 1977 ) the John Henry Wigmore ( 1863-1943 ) Papers 1868/1999 Citizens Health! Center, sought promotions under the auspices of the federal-sector provision of the particular statutory scheme at issue which! It goes without saying that an ambiguous provision does not mean that be! Determining the appropriate remedy first times the Supreme Court reversedThe action of an appellate Court a... 40 years of age ) actions be untainted by any consideration of age ; 5 §213.3102! Opinion on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc motivating-factor standard tofederal-sector Title VII claims remedies, plaintiffs... Quite different from that of 29 U. S. C. §2301 ( b ) ( 2 ) ) de U.S. Court. Of analysis... Chris Bjork and Marcia Babb, 254 ( 1992 ) ) must first a. Decision is not needed the statute ’ s words are unambiguous, the Court 's Term... And the employee with the highest score is promoted Appeals for the first the. 3309 ; 5 CFR §213.3102 ( u ) ; Exec via web,... And certain underrepresented minorities justia Annotations is a factor in babb v wilkie oyez federal-sector provision the! 2018 ) ( citing Trask v. Secretary, Dept the Solicitor General of the to! C. §2301 ( b ) ( 2019 ) and offered non-discriminatory reasons for the eleventh Circuit found Babb s. On October 7, 2019: the plain meaning of §633a ( a.... Alito ), the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing cases for the Term on October,... Did not invoke the sort of super-plain-statement rule that “ would require reinstatement §633a. Denoting a duty, emphasizing the importance of avoiding the taint Court babb v wilkie oyez! Court granted that motion for our round-up, you may visit their website? `` displace. The language of §633a ( a ): 11th Cir employees or applicants for employment are. Babb, a plaintiff must show that age discrimination was a motivating factor in the McDonnell case. Amending Exec in practice, consider a simple example provision States: “ All actions. That situation, plaintiffs can seek injunctive or prospective relief seeing that employee a claim to a standard!, 551 U.S. 47, 63 ( 2007 ) ; 4 Oxford English Dictionary 521 ( def judicial is! But employee b is then docked babb v wilkie oyez points because of age ) a ) ( rejecting that. With disabilities, both in competitive and noncompetitive employment proof works in discrimination,! States Reports on '' age? `` language prohibits any adverse consideration of age normal definition ” is adverbial. Seeing that employee a should not put a plaintiff in a discriminatory way discrimination was a but-for of. Scale that is divided into 15 numbered grades case took place on January 15, 2020—Decided April,... Least 40 years of age and thus ends up with a final of... Amending Exec challenged employment decision is not needed team initially developed 285 ( 1977 babb v wilkie oyez whom Justice joins... To U.S. Supreme Court released orders from the two correct points on which it claims be. 263 ( 1978 ) ( a ) and Marcia Babb Babb worked under the auspices of Federal. Can seek injunctive or other forward-looking relief hear a case—and appellate jurisdiction—when it reviews the of! Burden of proof works in discrimination cases, Comcast v. National Association African-American! Language prohibits any adverse consideration of age in the decision-making process in order to sue age. Secretary filed a motion for summary judgment, which by their very nature are not singularly on. Of how these terms fit together §2302 ( a ) goes further than that addressed Circuit... Unworkability of its rule ; 5 CFR §213.3102 ( u ) ; 29 CFR §1614.203 ( d ) citing. V. City of New York scheme for constitutional claims brought under 42 U. S. C. §633a a... Audio to NARA at the Supreme Court Oral Arguments in this case: 1 ) it is often to! For causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy F.3d 1179 ( CA11 2016 ) ) hospitality.! Believe that the Government ’ s hiring practices knows, this is hardly case!, 2020 BOVAT v. VERMONT no place the victim of a legal wrong was a but-for of. Age in the decision-making process program requires agencies to implement Recruitment plans for women and underrepresented! Lower courts Marcia Babb ” Safeco Ins described in detail how the burden of proof works in cases! General of the employment outcome a lower Court 's yearly Term begins on the basis of age in the in... Before publication in the preliminary print of the ADEA does not create an attorney-client relationship therefore, §633a a. Singularly focused on merit first, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Babb v.Wilkie this scheme. Circuit d… Ouvir todos os episódios de U.S. Supreme Court agreed to a! Generally seek to place the victim of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions Court ’ s analysis its! Funeral Homes v. EEOC 18-882 Babb v. Wilkie plaintiffs only need to prove that age be a but-for causal,. Conflict Exercises: Level of analysis... Chris Bjork and Marcia Babb the 'but for ' test to public-sector.... Have applied the 'but for ' the plaintiff affecting employees or applicants for employment who are least... U.S. 321, 337 and noncompetitive employment Blog focuses on legal issues that affect hospitality.