Babb v. Wilkie
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Babb_v._Wilkie an entity of type: Thing
Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Babb v. Wilkie
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Noris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
xsd:integer
62845259
xsd:integer
1108443941
rdf:langString
Thomas
xsd:integer
18
rdf:langString
Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh; Ginsburg
xsd:integer
140
rdf:langString
*Babb v. McDonald, No. 8:14-cv-1732, 2016 WL 4441652 ;
*Affirmed in part, reversed in part sub nom. Babb v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 743 F. App'x 280 ;
*Cert. granted sub nom. Babb v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2775 .
xsd:integer
589
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-15
xsd:integer
2020
rdf:langString
Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882, 589 U.S. ___
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-06
xsd:integer
2020
rdf:langString
Noris Babb, Petitioner v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
rdf:langString
Section 633 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 permits federal employees to sue over any adverse personnel action that is influenced by age, even if age was not the determinating factor.
rdf:langString
Babb v. Wilkie
rdf:langString
Alito
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision. 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. Groups like the AARP and the NTEU filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the plaintiff. The case also received some coverage due to a reference to the popular meme OK boomer by Chief Justice John Roberts during the oral arguments. This case is also notable because it addressed a circuit split between different federal courts on this issue. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, federal courts have applied the 'but for' test to public-sector employees. Others, such as the Ninth Circuit, have held that a motivating factor test should be used during the summary judgment phase but not for a trial.
rdf:langString
Sotomayor
rdf:langString
Ginsburg
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
14548