Supreme Court backs workers in retaliation

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers in the Cracker Barrel case.

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, Alito concluded for the court that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit.

The anti-age bias 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 applies 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.

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, like the two laws at issue, also doesn't explicitly talk about reprisals.

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 She has since retired and been replaced by Alito.

Some employment lawyers thought that the change in the high court personnel could be significant.

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

Also in msnbc.com business Your Career: Married to the job, and each other Answer Desk: Qualifying for more jobless benefits Venza sorta-crossover is Toyota’s latest mistake ConsumerMan: Chinese drywall remains a big threat   Video: This beer would cost you at least $8,000

MORE FROM CAREERS

Careers Section Front

Workers may jump ship as economy improves Teacher shortage has given way to teacher glut How to handle criticism from the boss Your Career: Working with your spouse Your Career: Turning dreams into reality Swine flu poses a costly decision for millions Supreme Court to hear labor board case The key to dealing with lousy boss: negotiation Can being laid off really make you better off? Worker: I was fired for wearing ‘God’ button Careers Section Front   Add Careers headlines to your news reader: