![]() ![]() This, of course, is the same standard that applies to non-federal sector plaintiffs. The bottom line is that it is easier for federal workers to show age discrimination but they may get little or nothing in the way of damages unless they can also show “but for” causation. If plaintiffs cannot show “but for” causation in the remedy phase, the Court said, they are entitled only to “injunctive or other forward looking relief.” To obtain such remedies, these plaintiffs must show that age discrimination was a but-for cause of the employment outcome.” “Plaintiffs who demonstrate only that they were subjected to unequal consideration cannot obtain reinstatement, backpay, compensatory damages, or other forms of relief related to the end result of an employment decision. ![]() The Court said it is appropriate to consider “but for” causation in the remedy phase of the case, after a finding of liability. The victory for federal workers was not unqualified. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represented the VA, claimed there was a distinction between the cause of an employment decision and the decision-making process. Babb, then in her 50s, claimed in 2014 that she was rejected for a promotion of sex and age discrimination and thereafter subjected to retaliation for complaining.Īlthough Babb clearly was a federal sector worker, the 11 th Circuit court insisted upon applying the narrow “but for” standard of causation applicable to non-federal sector workers. The Court reversed an 11 th Circuit decision dismissing an age discrimination case brought by Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Bay Pines, FL.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |