1

Question. Using Library or other Web resources, identify and describe a case in which

an employer’s activities were restricted due to age related rights of employees. Be sure

to explain how the U.S Employment Opportunity Commission’s criteria for age

discrimination apply to this case.

Similar to how the law protects people from racial, ethnic, and religious

discrimination, older people too are protected from harassment and discrimination by federal

laws. The Age Discrimination Act was enacted to encourage elderly people to seek jobs and

work primarily on their abilities instead of their age, to prevent arbitrarily age defined

employment discrimination, as well as to assist employees and organizations in resolving

issues resulting from the influence of age on work.

The 2020 Babb vs. Willkie case gives an insight into how age-related laws affect

employers’ activities. In the case, Babb alleged that she was discriminated in the workplace

due to her age and gender. Norris Babb started working for the United States Department of

Veteran Affairs at a medical facility in Bay Pines, Florida. In 2009 after obtaining an

advanced designation, she and other pharmacists asked for promotions which they later came

to believe were being given in a discriminatory method.

She filed a complaint with the U.S Employment Equal Opportunity after the medical

facility’s management decided to cancel her advanced designation, as well as denying her

professional training requests. She filed a legal suit against the Robert Willkie, the Secretary

Department of Veteran Affairs, in which she alleged that the healthcare facility’s

management discriminated her based on age.

In July 2014, the federal District Court in Florida granted the secretary’s request for a

summary judgement. The judge found that the Secretary for Veteran Affairs had offered

genuine, fair, and impartial reasons for department of Veteran Affairs activities. The court
 2

delivered a judgement in favor of Willkie stating that Babb could not prove the medical

facility’s reasons were not discriminatory. Babb filed an appeal in the 11 th Circuit of United

States Courts of Appeal which affirmed the lower court’s decision on the case in 2018. Upon

the second appeal, the Supreme Court granted her a judicial review of the lower court’s

judgement.

During the 2020 Supreme Court hearing of the case, the judges considered the limits

of employee’s protections covered in ADEA to deliver their judgement. The Supreme Court

reversed the lower court’s decision and made a landmark ruling that employees are only

required to provide evidence that their age was used as a motivating factor in their

employer’s discriminatory activities in order to file an age discrimination lawsuit.

It is unlawful for any person to discriminate against an employee due to their age in

any area of employment, including recruiting, termination, advancements, layoff,

remuneration, incentives, advancement opportunities, and training, as per the Age

Discrimination Act of 1967 (ADEA). This Act also prohibits discrimination of an older

employee based on their age. It is also prohibited to punish an employee for voicing out age

related workplace discrimination, filing an age discrimination claim, or participating in any

way in an age discrimination case investigation, procedure, or litigation under the Act.

Employees above the age of 40 are protected against age discrimination under the Act.

Reference

Foreman, M. (2020). Babb v. Willkie, Continues to Muddy the Waters. Retrieved 5 August

2021, from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/crsj-featured-articles/babb-

v--wilkie--continues-to-muddy-the-waters/