Home > Public Sector HR Community > Government Affairs > Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Cases

As part of its mission, IPMA-HR follows Supreme Court cases whose rulings could affect HR practices. For information on the following cases, click on the links below

Retaliation Suits Allowed under ADEA and Discrimination Law, Rules Supreme Court

On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 both prohibit retaliation. In the ADEA case, the Court ruled 6-3 that Myrna Gomez-Perez, a 45-year-old U.S. Postal Service worker, could sue the federal government for retaliation despite the fact that the federal ADEA provisions do not specifically mention retaliation.

Gomez-Perez worked for the United States Postal Service for many years and when her request to transfer back to a prior position was denied, she filed a complaint of age discrimination. She alleges that after filing the complaint she was accused of sexual harassment—without any basis—and that her hours were reduced and she was harassed and ridiculed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Gomez-Perez finding that the private sector provisions expressly allow for retaliation suits and the federal sector provisions do not. In reversing this ruling, the Supreme Court said that the the provisions were written and passed by Congress at different times, not that Congress intended to deny federal employees a right of action for retaliation. The case is Gomez-Perez v. Potter, Docket No. 06-1321.

The Supreme Court reached a similar decision in the case CBOCS West v. Humphries, Docket No. 06-1431, where the Court interpreted 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Section 1981 was passed by Congress in 1866 and predates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gives “all persons” the right to make and enforce contracts “as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Humphries’ Title VII was dismissed because he failed to meet the deadline for the filing fees.

Hendrick Humphries sued after he was fired for allegedly complaining to management about the race-based firing of a coworker. After complaining, Humphries was accused of failing to lock a safe after the restaurant closed and fired without an investigation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with Humphries that Section 1981 permits retaliation claims and the Supreme Court affirmed this in a 7-2 opinion.