High Court Sides With Workers In 2 Cases

Decisions Support Employees Who Face Retaliation Following Age And Race Discrimination Claims

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court sided Tuesday with employees who faced retaliation after complaining about race and age discrimination in rulings that drew support from conservative and liberal justices.

The court, by a 7-2 vote, said a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 covers claims of retaliation that follow complaints about discrimination on the basis of race.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court likewise held that the part of the major anti-age bias law covering federal employees also protects them from retaliation after complaining about discrimination.

Neither provision contains express prohibitions against retaliation.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court in a case involving a black Cracker Barrel employee who was fired, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered.

The idea that a provision of the 1866 law, known as section 1981, "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well embedded in the law," Breyer said.

"This helps employees by making it a little more convenient for them to sue their employers under federal law but it doesn't create a brand new right to do so," says CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "We'll see a few more lawsuits but not a new flood of them and perhaps we'll also see corporations settling some of these cases sooner rather than later."

Business groups objected that the absence of an explicit prohibition on retaliation was significant and said employees should have to file suit under another law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law has a shorter deadline for filing suit and caps the amount of money that a successful plaintiff may recover.

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers.

The case grew out of the firing of a black associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley, Ill. Hedrick Humphries claimed he was fired after he complained about race discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors.

Humphries filed a lawsuit claiming both discrimination and retaliation. Both claims were dismissed by a federal judge and only the retaliation claim was appealed.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Humphries could pursue his retaliation claim under section 1981. The high court upheld the appeals court ruling.

In the age retaliation case, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion concluded that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

"This is a bit of a surprise," says Cohen, "especially since Justice Alito sided against employers and with employees in expanding the reach of this federal age-discrimination law. It opens up the remedies in the law for the first time to federal employees instead of just private-sector employees."

The law does specifically bar reprisals against private sector employees who complain about discrimination. But it is silent as to federal workers. Alito said the law indeed does apply to both categories of employees.

The case involves Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker in Puerto Rico who alleged she was being discriminated against because of her age. Gomez-Perez, who was then 45, said that after she filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, she suffered a "series of reprisals" from her supervisors.

Gomez-Perez sued under the ADEA, claiming retaliation in violation of the law.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a lower court's dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.

The administration, which is backing workers in other age bias cases at the high court, said the ADEA does not afford federal workers protection from retaliation. It said Congress could have extended protections to federal workers, but didn't.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts joined them in the age bias case, but sided with the majority in the Cracker Barrel case.

Cohen observes that these two high court decisions mark "a stark turnaround from its recent reputation for being very much a pro-business, anti-labor court."

Both decisions relied, in part, on a 2005 ruling that called retaliation another form of intentional, unlawful discrimination under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education. Title IX also doesn't explicitly talk about reprisals.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that 5-4 decision. She has since retired, having been replaced by Alito.

The cases are Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 06-1321, and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 06-1431.

Also Tuesday, the Supreme Court:

• Said Alabama's governor did not need advance approval from the federal government to fill a county commission vacancy with a fellow Republican appointee.
  
• Refused to step into the case of former Illinois Gov. George
  Ryan, who was convicted of steering contracts, tax fraud, misuse of
  tax dollars and state workers, and killing a bribery investigation.

[carlylaine]

dakotaclark
The Constitution of the United States is NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT...therefore, it pertains to us on a human level and not according to today''s society. It STANDs forever.

[patriot12436]

It is about time the govt started doing something to help the working class.

[brianbwb-2009]

"He is about as pathetic as it gets for ALL people, not just blacks." Posted by MCVet

Seconded.

[it_oldtimer]

What this case really reveals is that both Scalia and Thomas are so completely "pro-corporation" and "anti-working class" that no arguments could ever manage to sway them even one iota from their misguided ideological biases. Their minds are completely closed.

[dakotaclark]

Hmmm..

Regarding Thurgood Marshall turning in his grave...

Actually, not only did he roll over more than a few times, I think the late Justice Marshall sat up, and changed ends in his coffin.

This "Supreme Court" is an embarrassment. They have the responsibility of determining today%u2019s life situations with life and laws at the time of the founding of the U.S.A.

The laws of the society of the 1650s to 1780s are draconian compared to life today. Yet, we have Supreme Court Justices, trying to apply those laws to present day situations.

It kind of makes one wonder if there should be just a few more amendments to the Constitution, to bring it up to date, so to speak.

[secundus2]

How about this as a theory? A fluctuating majority (not always composed of the same justices) will try to find some balance in labor-related cases. Last term "Ledbetter" (the Goodyear Co., I think) went in favor of business because the law sets a specific deadline for filing discrimination complaints and Ledbetter didn''t make the deadline. Retaliation is a more vague area and the court is looking at intent and fairness, so it came down on the side on employees. Not much politics, not much concern for who appointed whom to the court, just a coming to grips with the laws. As usual, CBS reports little or nothing of the court''s reasoning and just presents the decision as a partisan squabble. Its law correspondent must be the worst in the business.

[haoli25]

CBS don''t you ever proof-read this stuff? It''s 1966, NOT 1866.

[mrbrill]

Sorry, badaxmofo, but can you attempt to sound intelligent? The poster you quoted was simply pointing out something stated in the article. In no way was the poster saying that the Supreme Court was part of the administration. Maybe it would help if you would learn to read.

[mcvet]

Count on Clarence Thomas to be one of the dissenting votes. This guy is an enemy of his fellow Afro-Americans, absolutely. Thurgood Marshall, who was twice the man that Thomas is, is surely turning in his grave.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by heuristic1 at 05:35 PM : May 27, 2008
+ report abuse

He is about as pathetic as it gets for ALL people, not just blacks.

[mcvet]

Supreme Court not part of "Bush Administration" - thanks again for proving LIBTARDS really do exist...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by badaxmofo at 05:07 PM : May 27, 2008
+ report abuse

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers.

THAT is from the article you pathetic Bootlicker! ROFLMAO YOU do know that just about EVERY High School has basic READING Classes EVERY night don''t you?? You McCarthy Rejects are SOOOOOOOOO DUMB!! Now stand, wipe that boot polish off you face!! Now let Heir Cheney hear ya! You want him to know you will TRASH your country for the "party" don''t you??? Sing it out!! Sieg Heil Mein Fuhrer!! Dumb as a box of rocks ROFLMAO