Postal Workers Protected from Retaliation for Age-Discrimination Complaints

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled May 27 that the law that prohibits age discrimination protects federal and postal employees from retaliation when they file age-discrimination complaints. The ruling is noteworthy because the statute in question specifically prohibits reprisals against private-sector employees but does not include a ban on retaliation against public-sector workers.

In a pair of decisions, the nation’s highest court relied on precedent to conclude that federal anti-discrimination laws also protect workers from retaliation for filing complaints, even if the laws are silent on the issue.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court granted Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker from Puerto Rico, the right to pursue her lawsuit against the USPS under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Gomez-Perez, who was 45 at the time, alleged she was the victim of age discrimination when she was denied a transfer in November 2002. Following her complaint, the lawsuit asserts, she suffered a “series of reprisals” from her supervisors.

“This is an important victory for postal and federal employees,” APWU President William Burrus said. “The ruling makes clear that postal workers enjoy the same protection against retaliation as employees in the private sector.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision for the majority: “The key question in this case is whether the statutory phrase ‘discrimination based on age’ includes retaliation based on the filing of an age discrimination complaint,” he said. “We hold that it does.” Dissenting from the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

The decision overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court, which dismissed Gomez-Perez’s suit, concluding that the age-discrimination provision that applies to federal workers does not include retaliation claims.

In another decision, the court voted 7-2 that an 1866 civil rights law gave Hedrick G. Humphries, an African-American worker who was fired from a Cracker Barrel restaurant, the right to pursue a claim of retaliation, even though the reprisals are not addressed in the Reconstruction-era law. Once again, Scalia and Thomas dissented.