| Gomez-Perez v. Potter | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 19, 2008 Decided May 27, 2008 |
||||||
| Full case name | Myrna Gomez-Perez, Petitioner v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General | |||||
| Docket nos. | 06-1321 | |||||
| Citations | 128 S.Ct. 1931, 170 L.Ed.2d 887 | |||||
| Argument | Oral argument | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Federal employees who face retaliation after filing an age discrimination claim are authorized to sue under the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Alito, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as added, 88 Stat. 74, and amended, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V | ||||||
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case holding that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint. The case continued the Court's long-standing position that cause for action following retaliation can be inferred in civil rights legislation that does not explicitly provide protection against such retaliation. The case is important because it signaled a willingness by recently appointed Justice Samuel Alito to continue the Court's expansive interpretation of civil rights laws.
After filing a Postal Service equal employment opportunity age discrimination complaint, postal worker Myrna Gómez-Pérez's hours were cut back significantly and she was subjected to various workplace intimidation and abuse.
The petitioner, Myrna Gomez-Perez, worked for the Puerto Rico Post Office as a part-time window distribution clerk. She filed an equal employment opportunity complaint alleging that a supervisor denied her request for a transfer to a full-time position based on her age. She subsequently filed the retaliation suit at issue in this case, claiming that after she filed her EEO complaint she was subjected to a series of reprisals that included groundless charges of sexual harassment, substantial reductions in her hours, and being harassed and mocked by her co-workers.