potter
postmaster
general
argued
february
decided
may
petitioner
postal
worker
filed
suit
claiming
employer
violated
provision
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
requires
personnel
actions
affecting
employees
least
years
age
made
free
discrimination
based
age
subjecting
various
forms
retaliation
filed
administrative
adea
complaint
district
granted
respondent
summary
judgment
first
circuit
affirmed
ground
prohibition
discrimination
based
age
cover
retaliation
held
section
prohibits
retaliation
federal
employee
complains
age
discrimination
pp
concluding
follows
reasoning
two
prior
decisions
ruling
retaliation
covered
similar
language
antidiscrimination
statutes
first
sullivan
little
hunting
park
held
retaliation
claim
brought
provides
citizens
shall
right
enjoyed
white
citizens
inherit
purchase
lease
sell
hold
convey
real
personal
property
use
phrase
discrimination
based
race
plain
meaning
see
jackson
birmingham
bd
second
jackson
relied
sullivan
holding
title
ix
education
amendments
prohibits
discrimination
basis
sex
educational
programs
receiving
federal
aid
reached
retaliation
public
school
teacher
complaining
sex
discrimination
school
athletic
program
adea
language
issue
discrimination
based
age
materially
different
language
issue
jackson
functional
equivalent
language
issue
sullivan
see
jackson
supra
context
statutory
language
appears
three
cases
remedial
provisions
aimed
prohibiting
discrimination
respondent
neither
asks
overrule
sullivan
jackson
questions
decisions
reasoning
government
jackson
cbocs
west
humphries
ante
specifically
urged
follow
sullivan
reasoning
pp
three
grounds
first
circuit
sought
distinguish
jackson
support
circuit
perception
clear
difference
causes
action
discrimination
retaliation
persuasive
pp
circuit
places
much
reliance
fact
adea
expressly
creates
private
right
action
whereas
right
action
title
ix
statute
issue
jackson
implied
express
see
cannon
university
chicago
assertion
distinction
allowed
jackson
greater
leeway
adopt
expansive
interpretation
title
ix
improperly
conflates
analytically
distinct
questions
whether
statute
confers
private
right
action
whether
statute
substantive
prohibition
reaches
particular
form
conduct
moreover
confusing
questions
lead
exceedingly
strange
results
example
title
ix
prohibition
discrimination
basis
sex
either
reach
retaliation
presence
absence
another
statutory
provision
expressly
creating
private
right
action
alter
scope
pp
also
unavailing
circuit
attempt
distinguish
jackson
ground
retaliation
claims
play
important
role
title
ix
adea
argument
ignores
basis
jackson
hold
title
ix
prohibits
retaliation
claims
important
policy
matter
instead
relied
interpretation
text
title
ix
jackson
statement
teachers
often
best
position
vindicate
student
rights
address
question
whether
statutory
term
discrimination
encompasses
retaliation
made
response
school
board
argument
victim
discrimination
third
parties
allowed
assert
retaliation
claim
finally
circuit
attempt
distinguish
jackson
ground
title
ix
adopted
response
sullivan
whereas
evidence
adea
legislative
history
adopted
similar
context
rejected
jackson
identify
legislative
history
evidence
merely
observed
congress
enacted
title
ix
three
years
sullivan
presume
congress
thoroughly
familiar
sullivan
expected
title
ix
interpreted
conformity
jackson
said
relationship
sullivan
title
ix
enactment
also
said
relationship
sullivan
enactment
since
latter
provision
enacted
five
years
sullivan
decided
two
years
title
ix
enacted
pp
respondent
arguments
supporting
contention
encompass
retaliation
claims
rejected
pp
respondent
places
much
reliance
presence
adea
provision
specifically
prohibiting
retaliation
individuals
complaining
age
discrimination
absence
similar
provision
enacted
seven
years
apart
rather
simultaneously
see
lindh
murphy
couched
different
terms
listing
specific
forbidden
employer
practices
contrast
broad
prohibition
discrimination
absence
provision
similar
provide
sufficient
reason
depart
sullivan
jackson
pp
even
less
merit
respondent
reliance
provides
personnel
actions
federal
entity
covered
shall
subject
affected
provision
chapter
restricts
adea
coverage
persons
least
years
old
respondent
contention
recognizing
retaliation
claims
make
applicable
employers
contravention
unsound
holding
today
based
unaffected
adea
sections
lehman
nakshian
also
unavailing
respondent
argument
history
congressional
executive
branch
responses
discrimination
federal
employment
demonstrates
congress
enacted
anticipated
reprisal
regulations
civil
service
commission
csc
extended
cover
age
discrimination
exclusive
avenue
asserting
retaliation
claims
argument
supported
direct
evidence
rests
unsupported
speculation
event
confer
antiretaliation
right
reason
assume
congress
expected
csc
issue
new
regulations
prohibiting
retaliation
pp
respondent
final
argument
sovereign
immunity
principles
require
read
narrowly
prohibiting
substantive
age
discrimination
retaliation
unpersuasive
rule
construction
requiring
waiver
federal
government
sovereign
immunity
unequivocally
expressed
statutory
text
strictly
construed
favor
sovereign
lane
pe
satisfied
unequivocally
waives
sovereign
immunity
claim
brought
ny
person
aggrieved
violation
unlike
waiver
sovereign
immunity
substantive
provision
outlawing
discrimination
waiver
applies
claims
mean
must
surmount
high
hurdle
pp
reversed
remanded
alito
delivered
opinion
stevens
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
roberts
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
thomas
joined
part
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
joined
myrna
petitioner
john
potter
postmaster
general
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
may
justice
alito
delivered
opinion
question
us
whether
federal
employee
victim
retaliation
due
filing
complaint
age
discrimination
may
assert
claim
provision
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
added
stat
amended
supp
hold
claim
authorized
petitioner
myrna
window
distribution
clerk
postal
service
october
petitioner
years
age
working
full
time
post
office
dorado
puerto
rico
requested
transfer
post
office
moca
puerto
rico
order
closer
mother
ill
transfer
approved
november
petitioner
began
working
moca
post
office
position
later
month
petitioner
requested
transfer
back
old
job
dorado
post
office
supervisor
converted
dorado
position
filled
another
employee
denied
petitioner
application
first
filing
unsuccessful
union
grievance
seeking
transfer
back
old
job
petitioner
filed
postal
service
equal
employment
opportunity
age
discrimination
complaint
according
petitioner
subjected
various
forms
retaliation
specifically
petitioner
alleges
supervisor
called
meetings
groundless
complaints
leveled
name
written
antisexual
harassment
posters
falsely
accused
sexual
harassment
told
ed
work
hours
drastically
reduced
petitioner
responded
filing
action
district
district
puerto
rico
claiming
among
things
respondent
violated
provision
adea
supp
retaliating
filing
equal
employment
opportunity
age
discrimination
complaint
respondent
moved
summary
judgment
arguing
waived
sovereign
immunity
adea
retaliation
claims
adea
provision
reach
retaliation
district
granted
summary
judgment
favor
respondent
basis
sovereign
immunity
appeal
appeals
first
circuit
held
postal
reorganization
act
unequivocally
waived
postal
service
sovereign
immunity
see
affirmed
decision
district
alternative
ground
provision
prohibition
discrimination
based
age
supp
cover
retaliation
creating
split
among
courts
appeals
compare
forman
small
cadc
adea
provision
covers
retaliation
granted
certiorari
ii
provision
adea
provides
personnel
actions
affecting
employees
applicants
employment
least
years
age
shall
made
free
discrimination
based
age
supp
key
question
case
whether
statutory
phrase
discrimination
based
age
includes
retaliation
based
filing
age
discrimination
complaint
hold
reaching
conclusion
guided
prior
decisions
interpreting
similar
language
antidiscrimination
statutes
sullivan
little
hunting
park
considered
whether
claim
retaliation
brought
rev
stat
provides
citizens
shall
right
enjoyed
white
citizens
inherit
purchase
lease
sell
hold
convey
real
personal
property
use
phrase
discrimination
based
race
plain
meaning
see
tennessee
lane
scalia
dissenting
describing
banning
public
private
racial
discrimination
sale
rental
property
jones
alfred
mayer
sullivan
white
man
sullivan
held
membership
shares
nonstock
corporation
operated
park
playground
residents
area
owned
home
bylaws
corporation
member
leased
home
area
assign
membership
share
corporation
sullivan
rented
house
attempted
assign
membership
share
freeman
corporation
disallowed
assignment
freeman
race
subsequently
expelled
sullivan
corporation
protesting
decision
sullivan
sued
corporation
held
claim
expelled
advocacy
freeman
cause
cognizable
contrary
holding
reasoned
allowed
sullivan
punished
trying
vindicate
rights
minorities
given
impetus
perpetuation
racial
restrictions
property
ibid
recently
jackson
birmingham
bd
relied
sullivan
interpreting
title
ix
education
amendments
stat
amended
et
seq
ed
supp
jackson
public
school
teacher
sued
school
board
title
ix
alleging
board
retaliated
complained
sex
discrimination
high
school
athletic
program
title
ix
provides
relevant
part
person
shall
basis
sex
subjected
discrimination
education
program
activity
receiving
federal
financial
assistance
ed
emphasis
added
holding
provision
prohibits
retaliation
wrote
retaliation
person
person
complained
sex
discrimination
another
form
intentional
sex
discrimination
retaliation
definition
intentional
act
form
complainant
subjected
differential
treatment
moreover
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
intentional
response
nature
complaint
allegation
sex
discrimination
conclude
funding
recipient
retaliates
person
complains
sex
discrimination
constitutes
intentional
basis
sex
violation
title
ix
citations
omitted
interpretation
found
flowed
naturally
sullivan
retaliation
jackson
advocacy
rights
girls
basketball
team
case
basis
sex
retaliation
advocacy
behalf
black
lessee
sullivan
discrimination
basis
race
following
reasoning
sullivan
jackson
interpret
adea
provision
prohibition
discrimination
based
age
likewise
proscribing
retaliation
statutory
language
issue
discrimination
based
age
materially
different
language
issue
jackson
basis
functional
equivalent
language
issue
sullivan
see
jackson
supra
describing
sullivan
involving
discrimination
basis
race
context
statutory
language
appears
three
cases
three
cases
involve
remedial
provisions
aimed
prohibiting
discrimination
jackson
dissent
strenuously
argued
claim
retaliation
conceptually
different
claim
discrimination
see
opinion
thomas
view
respondent
case
ask
us
overrule
sullivan
jackson
respondent
question
reasoning
decisions
indeed
jackson
government
contended
text
title
ix
demonstrate
encompasses
protection
retaliation
since
retaliation
person
person
filed
sex
discrimination
complaint
form
intentional
sex
discrimination
brief
amicus
curiae
jackson
birmingham
bd
similarly
another
case
term
government
urged
us
follow
reasoning
sullivan
hold
claim
retaliation
may
brought
rev
stat
case
government
argues
prohibition
quite
naturally
includes
discrimination
account
complained
discrimination
brief
amicus
curiae
cbocs
west
humphries
iii
decision
appeals
respondent
defends
perceived
clear
difference
cause
action
discrimination
cause
action
retaliation
sought
distinguish
jackson
three
grounds
persuaded
however
attempted
distinctions
appeals
first
relied
fact
adea
expressly
creates
private
right
action
whereas
title
ix
statute
issue
jackson
see
appeals
appears
reasoned
private
right
action
title
ix
implied
express
see
cannon
university
chicago
jackson
greater
leeway
adopt
expansive
interpretation
title
ix
prohibition
discrimination
basis
sex
reasoning
improperly
conflates
question
whether
statute
confers
private
right
action
question
whether
statute
substantive
prohibition
reaches
particular
form
conduct
questions
analytically
distinct
confusing
lead
exceedingly
strange
results
example
appeals
reasoning
title
ix
prohibition
discrimination
basis
sex
might
narrower
scope
might
reach
retaliation
title
ix
contained
provision
expressly
authorizing
aggrieved
private
party
bring
suit
remedy
violation
see
conclusion
defended
section
prohibition
discrimination
either
reach
retaliation
presence
absence
another
statutory
provision
expressly
creating
private
right
action
alter
scope
addition
perverse
enactment
provision
explicitly
creating
private
right
action
provision
anything
tend
suggest
congress
perceived
need
strong
remedy
taken
justification
narrowing
scope
underlying
prohibition
appeals
reasoning
also
seems
lead
strange
conclusion
despite
jackson
holding
private
party
may
assert
retaliation
claim
title
ix
federal
government
might
authorized
impose
upon
entity
engages
retaliation
administrative
remedies
including
termination
funding
expressly
sanctioned
extremely
odd
however
broader
scope
enforced
means
expressly
sanctioned
statute
enforced
means
statute
explicitly
provides
reasons
reject
proposition
jackson
may
distinguished
present
case
ground
title
ix
private
right
action
implied
appeals
next
attempted
distinguish
jackson
ground
retaliation
claims
play
important
role
title
ix
adea
appeals
pointed
statement
jackson
coaches
often
best
position
vindicate
rights
students
better
able
identify
discrimination
bring
attention
administrators
quoting
jackson
appeals
suggested
third
parties
needed
identify
instances
age
discrimination
bring
attention
supervisors
consequently
need
extend
supp
reach
retaliation
argument
ignores
basis
decision
jackson
jackson
hold
title
ix
prohibits
retaliation
concluded
policy
matter
claims
important
instead
holding
jackson
based
interpretation
text
title
ix
moreover
statements
jackson
appeals
relied
address
question
whether
statutory
term
discrimination
encompasses
retaliation
instead
statements
addressed
school
board
argument
even
title
ix
held
permit
retaliation
claims
victim
discrimination
third
parties
allowed
assert
claim
response
argument
noted
particular
importance
reports
title
ix
violations
third
parties
teachers
coaches
finally
appeals
attempted
distinguish
jackson
ground
title
ix
adopted
response
holding
sullivan
whereas
evidence
legislative
history
adea
federal
sector
provisions
adopted
similar
context
jackson
reliance
sullivan
however
stem
evidence
legislative
history
title
ix
jackson
identify
evidence
merely
observed
congress
enacted
title
ix
three
years
sullivan
decided
due
chronology
concluded
appropriate
also
realistic
presume
congress
thoroughly
familiar
sullivan
expected
enactment
title
ix
interpreted
conformity
ibid
quoting
cannon
see
also
title
ix
enacted
three
years
sullivan
sullivan
formed
important
part
backdrop
congress
enacted
title
ix
jackson
said
relationship
sullivan
enactment
title
ix
said
well
relationship
sullivan
enactment
adea
provision
ed
supp
sullivan
decided
enacted
five
years
decision
sullivan
two
years
enactment
title
ix
see
reason
think
congress
forgot
sullivan
two
years
passed
enactment
title
ix
enactment
jackson
presumed
congress
sullivan
mind
enacted
title
ix
appropriate
realistic
presume
congress
expected
prohibition
discrimination
based
age
interpreted
conformity
similarly
worded
prohibition
discrimination
basis
sex
enacted
two
years
earlier
quoting
cannon
supra
iv
arguing
supp
encompass
retaliation
claims
respondent
relies
principally
presence
provision
adea
specifically
prohibiting
retaliation
individuals
complain
age
discrimination
private
sector
absence
similar
provision
specifically
prohibiting
retaliation
individuals
complain
age
discrimination
federal
employment
according
respondent
strong
presumption
omission
reflects
congress
acted
intentionally
purposely
including
language
section
act
excluding
section
brief
respondent
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
egative
implications
raised
disparate
provisions
strongest
instances
relevant
statutory
provisions
considered
simultaneously
language
raising
implication
inserted
lindh
murphy
two
relevant
provisions
considered
enacted
together
section
specifically
prohibits
private
sector
retaliation
enacted
see
stat
provision
added
see
stat
respondent
argument
also
undermined
fact
prohibitory
language
adea
provision
differs
sharply
corresponding
adea
provision
relating
employment
provision
congress
set
specific
list
forbidden
employer
practices
see
omission
list
specific
prohibition
retaliation
might
interpreted
suggesting
congress
want
reach
retaliation
therefore
congress
reason
include
specific
prohibition
retaliation
order
dispel
inference
adea
provision
however
modeled
couched
different
terms
adea
provision
patterned
directly
title
vii
discrimination
ban
lehman
nakshian
like
adea
provision
title
vii
provision
contains
broad
prohibition
discrimination
rather
list
specific
prohibited
practices
compare
stat
amended
supp
personnel
actions
affecting
federal
employees
shall
made
free
discrimination
based
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
supp
personnel
actions
affecting
federal
employees
least
years
age
shall
made
free
discrimination
based
age
like
adea
provision
title
vii
provision
incorporates
certain
provisions
incorporate
provision
prohibiting
retaliation
private
sector
see
incorporating
forbids
retaliation
congress
decided
pattern
instead
enact
broad
general
ban
discrimination
based
age
congress
presumably
familiar
sullivan
reason
expect
ban
interpreted
conformity
precedent
jackson
reasoning
sullivan
retaliation
complaining
age
discrimination
discrimination
based
age
retaliation
advocacy
behalf
black
lessee
sullivan
discrimination
basis
race
thus
enacted
separately
couched
different
terms
absence
provision
similar
provide
sufficient
reason
depart
reasoning
sullivan
see
even
less
merit
respondent
reliance
provides
personnel
actions
federal
department
agency
entity
covered
shall
subject
affected
provision
chapter
provision
restricts
coverage
adea
persons
least
years
age
respondent
contends
recognizing
retaliation
claims
tantamount
making
applicable
employers
thus
contravene
argument
unsound
holding
adea
prohibits
retaliation
employees
way
based
conclusion
instead
based
squarely
supp
unaffected
sections
act
lehman
supra
respondent
next
advances
complicated
argument
concerning
history
congressional
executive
branch
responses
problem
discrimination
federal
employment
brief
respondent
title
vii
made
applicable
federal
employment
see
equal
employment
act
stat
civil
service
commission
issued
new
regulations
prohibited
discrimination
federal
employment
based
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
age
see
cfr
well
reprisal
prompted
complaints
discrimination
congress
enacted
adea
provisions
respondent
argues
congress
anticipated
enactment
prompt
civil
service
commission
extend
existing
reprisal
regulations
cover
age
discrimination
complaints
congress
intended
civil
service
process
provide
exclusive
avenue
asserting
retaliation
claims
brief
respondent
respondent
suggests
congress
took
approach
believed
civil
service
regulations
reflect
ed
distinct
set
public
policy
concerns
civil
service
sector
respondent
cites
direct
evidence
congress
actually
took
approach
respondent
argument
rests
nothing
unsupported
speculation
event
respondent
argument
contradicts
respondent
maintains
ection
confer
right
reason
assume
congress
expected
civil
service
commission
respond
enactment
issuing
new
regulations
prohibiting
retaliation
contrary
respondent
maintains
congress
declined
provide
antiretaliation
right
congress
presumably
expected
civil
service
commission
abide
policy
choice
respondent
final
argument
principles
sovereign
immunity
require
section
read
narrowly
prohibiting
substantive
age
discrimination
retaliation
respondent
contends
broad
waiver
sovereign
immunity
postal
reorganization
act
beside
point
present
purposes
many
federal
agencies
provision
waives
sovereign
immunity
adea
claims
contained
therefore
waiver
provision
must
construed
strictly
favor
sovereign
brief
respondent
quoting
nordic
village
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
respondent
course
correct
waiver
federal
government
sovereign
immunity
must
unequivocally
expressed
statutory
text
strictly
construed
terms
scope
favor
sovereign
lane
pe
rule
construction
satisfied
subsection
unequivocally
waives
sovereign
immunity
claim
brought
ny
person
aggrieved
remedy
violation
unlike
supp
waiver
sovereign
immunity
substantive
provision
outlawing
discrimination
waiver
applies
claims
mean
must
surmount
high
hurdle
see
white
mountain
apache
tribe
one
statutory
provision
unequivocally
provides
waiver
sovereign
immunity
enforce
separate
statutory
provision
latter
provision
construed
manner
appropriate
waivers
sovereign
quoting
mitchell
event
even
must
construed
manner
hold
reasons
previously
explained
prohibits
retaliation
requisite
clarity
reasons
hold
prohibits
retaliation
federal
employee
complains
age
discrimination
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
myrna
petitioner
john
potter
postmaster
general
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
may
chief
justice
roberts
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
join
part
dissenting
today
holds
provision
age
discrimination
employment
act
encompasses
claims
age
discrimination
language
expressly
provides
also
claims
retaliation
complaining
age
discrimination
language
protection
discrimination
may
include
protection
retaliation
complaining
discrimination
always
case
separate
treatment
provision
adea
makes
clear
view
statutory
language
structure
well
fact
congress
always
protected
federal
employees
retaliation
established
civil
service
process
confirm
congress
intend
employees
separate
judicial
remedy
retaliation
adea
respectfully
dissent
congress
enacted
age
discrimination
employment
act
stat
time
applied
private
employers
purpose
promot
ing
employment
older
persons
based
ability
rather
age
prohibit
ing
arbitrary
age
discrimination
employment
help
ing
employers
workers
find
ways
meeting
problems
arising
impact
age
employment
act
implemented
purpose
two
principal
ways
first
statute
made
unlawful
employer
discriminate
individual
individual
age
second
congress
enacted
specific
antiretaliation
provision
made
unlawful
employer
discriminate
employees
applicants
employment
individual
opposed
practice
made
unlawful
section
individual
made
charge
testified
assisted
participated
manner
investigation
proceeding
litigation
adea
fair
labor
standards
amendments
flsa
amendments
stat
congress
among
things
extended
adea
executive
branch
employees
adopting
like
counterpart
provision
includes
ban
discrimination
basis
age
unlike
counterpart
provision
include
separate
ban
retaliation
provision
specifies
personnel
actions
affecting
employees
applicants
employment
least
years
age
various
federal
agencies
shall
made
free
discrimination
based
age
despite
absence
express
retaliation
provision
finds
statute
encompasses
discrimination
retaliation
claims
support
proposition
principally
relies
decisions
sullivan
little
hunting
park
jackson
birmingham
bd
view
majority
reads
cases
worth
majority
correctly
held
sullivan
prohibits
race
discrimination
sale
rental
property
also
provides
cause
action
recently
held
jackson
title
ix
education
amendments
stat
provides
relevant
part
person
shall
basis
sex
excluded
participation
denied
benefits
subjected
discrimination
education
program
activity
receiving
federal
financial
assistance
encompasses
claims
retaliation
complaints
sex
discrimination
extent
majority
takes
precedents
principle
broad
antidiscrimination
provisions
may
also
encompass
antiretaliation
component
disagree
able
join
today
opinion
cbocs
west
humphries
ante
holding
retaliation
claim
cognizable
contrary
majority
apparent
view
time
congress
proscribes
discrimination
based
means
proscribe
retaliation
well
clear
provision
adea
includes
ban
discriminat
ion
individual
individual
age
also
includes
separate
presumably
superfluous
ban
retaliation
indeed
made
precise
observation
jackson
respondent
case
argued
title
ix
ban
discrimination
include
cause
action
retaliation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
like
provision
adea
includes
discrete
discrimination
retaliation
provisions
see
discrimination
retaliation
distinguished
title
vii
ground
title
ix
broadly
written
general
prohibition
discrimination
title
vii
spells
greater
detail
conduct
constitutes
discrimination
violation
statute
thus
distinguished
title
vii
title
ix
jackson
also
acknowledged
every
express
ban
discrimination
must
read
ban
retaliation
well
although
majority
asserts
jackson
rejected
view
claim
retaliation
conceptually
different
claim
discrimination
ante
since
explained
antidiscrimination
antiretaliation
provisions
indeed
conceptually
distinct
serve
distinct
purposes
burlington
white
considered
whether
antiretaliation
provision
title
vii
provision
materially
indistinguishable
adea
applies
employer
actions
resulting
harms
related
employment
workplace
answering
question
negative
explained
antidiscrimination
provision
seeks
workplace
individuals
discriminated
protected
status
antiretaliation
provision
seeks
secure
primary
objective
preventing
employer
interfering
retaliation
employee
efforts
secure
advance
enforcement
act
basic
guarantees
substantive
provision
seeks
prevent
injury
individuals
based
status
antiretaliation
provision
seeks
prevent
harm
individuals
based
conduct
citation
omitted
take
sullivan
jackson
proposition
broad
bans
discrimination
standing
alone
may
read
include
retaliation
component
provision
issue
stand
alone
jackson
makes
clear
see
words
statute
must
read
context
view
place
overall
statutory
scheme
davis
michigan
dept
treasury
text
structure
statute
broader
statutory
scheme
part
distinctions
employment
convince
provide
cause
action
retaliation
ii
explained
congress
includes
particular
language
one
section
statute
omits
another
section
act
generally
presumed
congress
acts
intentionally
purposely
disparate
inclusion
exclusion
russello
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
majority
holds
ban
discrimination
based
age
encompasses
discrimination
retaliation
claims
difficult
understand
congress
felt
need
specify
separate
prohibitions
discriminat
ion
individual
age
retaliation
majority
responds
noting
egative
implications
raised
disparate
provisions
strongest
instances
relevant
statutory
provisions
simultaneously
language
raising
implication
inserted
ante
quoting
lindh
murphy
majority
notes
enacted
passed
ante
fair
enough
quarrel
principle
general
matter
think
work
majority
thinks
congress
obviously
adea
provision
prominently
enacted
bill
included
also
amended
provision
see
stat
amending
definition
employer
include
political
subdivisions
indeed
quite
odd
assume
majority
see
ante
congress
enacted
aware
relied
upon
decision
sullivan
interpreted
wholly
unrelated
provision
attuned
work
reflected
differences
even
negative
implication
drawn
differences
may
strongest
circumstances
certainly
strong
enough
moreover
point
relied
differences
language
provisions
adea
specifically
interpretation
lehman
nakshian
faced
question
whether
person
bringing
action
alleging
violation
entitled
trial
jury
holding
right
available
federal
government
relied
fact
adea
provision
include
provision
jury
trial
analogous
grant
right
action
provision
expressly
provides
jury
trials
reasoned
congress
accordingly
demonstrated
knew
provide
statutory
right
jury
trial
wished
elsewhere
cited
failed
explicitly
ibid
quoting
galloway
congress
demonstrated
knew
provide
retaliation
cause
action
wished
elsewhere
cited
failed
explicitly
majority
argues
inference
weakened
fact
provision
congress
set
specific
list
forbidden
employer
practices
ante
broad
general
ban
based
age
ante
point
cuts
majority
section
drew
distinction
prohibited
employer
practices
discriminate
based
age
retaliation
see
discriminatory
mployer
practices
retaliation
section
phrased
prohibited
discrimination
terms
personnel
actions
congress
regard
retaliation
included
within
employer
practices
dealt
separately
counterpart
employer
practices
discriminatory
personnel
actions
similarly
read
include
retaliation
argument
meaning
attach
congress
inclusion
antiretaliation
provision
supported
several
factors
begin
congress
expressly
made
clear
adea
provisions
apply
counterpart
providing
ny
personnel
action
referred
subsection
section
shall
subject
affected
provision
adea
except
one
provision
relevant
majority
sees
merit
respondent
reliance
ante
relied
provision
lehman
explained
subsection
clearly
emphasize
unaffected
sections
adea
fact
used
support
holding
provision
provide
right
jury
trial
even
though
provision
short
congress
aware
significant
differences
portions
adea
specified
part
former
understood
implicitly
imported
latter
actions
congress
took
time
enacted
underscore
point
congress
deliberately
chose
exclude
retaliation
claims
adea
provision
fair
labor
standards
amendments
act
name
suggests
dealt
part
adea
fair
labor
standards
act
extending
statute
protections
federal
employees
see
flsa
amendments
stat
congress
explicitly
subjected
federal
employers
flsa
express
antiretaliation
provision
congress
similarly
subject
federal
government
express
antiretaliation
provision
adea
strongly
suggesting
conscious
choice
majority
responds
inference
unfounded
congress
good
reason
expect
broad
ban
interpreted
way
sullivan
interpreted
broad
ban
racial
discrimination
ante
anything
possible
seems
far
likely
congress
eye
provision
adea
crafting
federal
one
rather
one
precedents
different
statute
see
supra
whatever
merits
argument
rebut
import
probative
provisions
flsa
amendments
particular
congress
specifically
chose
flsa
amendments
treat
federal
government
differently
respect
adea
subjected
former
adea
provision
see
flsa
amendments
stat
including
express
prohibition
retaliation
creating
prohibition
discrimination
federal
employment
without
antiretaliation
provision
see
ibid
decision
evinces
deliberate
legislative
choice
extend
portions
adea
provisions
expressly
included
course
congress
specified
given
seems
safe
say
text
structure
statute
strongly
support
proposition
congress
intend
include
cause
action
retaliation
federal
employees
iii
congress
allow
retaliation
suits
state
employers
federal
government
answer
retaliation
dealt
judicial
remedy
rather
way
retaliation
federal
workplace
typically
addressed
established
civil
service
system
comprehensive
protection
government
workers
congress
quite
familiar
detailed
administrative
system
one
already
existed
federal
employees
private
ones
approach
unlike
consistent
fact
congress
recognized
regulation
civil
service
complex
issue
requiring
careful
attention
conflicting
policy
considerations
balancing
governmental
efficiency
rights
employees
bush
lucas
resulting
system
often
requires
remedies
different
found
appropriate
private
sector
even
title
vii
extended
federal
employees
discrimination
federal
employment
basis
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
prohibited
executive
order
see
exec
order
fed
reg
civil
service
regulations
implemented
policy
authorizing
executive
branch
employees
bring
administrative
complaints
allegedly
discriminatory
acts
including
personnel
action
cfr
regulations
provided
complainants
representatives
witnesses
shall
free
restraint
interference
coercion
discrimination
reprisal
involvement
complaint
process
complainants
representatives
witnesses
civil
service
commission
csc
promulgated
detailed
scheme
federal
employees
vindicate
rights
including
express
antiretaliation
protections
serious
personnel
actions
known
adverse
actions
challenged
employing
agency
appealed
csc
see
less
serious
personnel
actions
matter
concern
dissatisfaction
challenged
alternative
procedures
also
appealable
csc
see
retaliation
proscribed
events
see
incorporating
part
antiretaliation
provisions
complaint
procedures
except
certain
appeals
csc
antiretaliation
provisions
csc
appeals
congress
applied
title
vii
equal
employment
opportunity
act
eeo
act
stat
mandating
personnel
actions
respect
federal
employees
shall
made
free
discrimination
based
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
congress
empowered
csc
enforce
provisions
subsection
appropriate
remedies
issue
rules
regulations
orders
instructions
deems
necessary
appropriate
carry
responsibilities
section
grant
authority
well
prior
authority
statute
executive
order
csc
revised
regulations
implement
eeo
act
strengthen
system
complaint
processing
fed
reg
part
subpart
prior
system
administrative
enforcement
csc
distinguished
complaints
discrimination
grounds
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
cfr
one
hand
charges
complainant
representative
witness
alleges
restraint
interference
coercion
discrimination
reprisal
connection
presentation
complaint
regulations
imposed
upon
employing
agencies
obligation
timely
investigation
resolution
complaints
including
complaints
coercion
reprisal
fed
reg
see
also
cfr
made
clear
procedures
processing
retaliation
claims
regulations
mandated
csc
require
employing
agency
take
whatever
action
appropriate
respect
allegations
retaliation
agency
completed
appropriate
inquiry
thus
leading
enactment
csc
comprehensive
regulatory
scheme
set
forth
broadly
applicable
remedy
retaliation
federal
employees
filing
complaints
otherwise
participating
eeo
process
congress
empowered
csc
enforce
provisions
appropriate
remedies
issue
rules
regulations
orders
instructions
deems
necessary
appropriate
carry
responsibilities
statute
stat
assumption
congress
expected
csc
create
administrative
antiretaliation
remedy
complaints
discrimination
title
vii
compelling
sure
enough
csc
promptly
enacted
see
fed
reg
cfr
given
history
addressing
retaliation
administrative
means
combined
complicated
nature
relative
private
sector
federal
personnel
practices
therefore
means
anomalous
congress
dealt
primary
objective
combating
age
discrimination
judicial
remedy
burlington
left
expert
administrators
used
dealing
personnel
matters
federal
work
force
secure
primary
objective
preventing
employer
interfering
retaliation
employee
efforts
secure
advance
enforcement
act
basic
guarantees
ibid
majority
discounts
argument
unsupported
speculation
ante
seems
fact
executive
branch
always
treated
discrimination
retaliation
distinct
enacted
administrative
remedies
retaliation
almost
immediately
passage
title
vii
adea
provisions
provide
plenty
support
even
majority
right
view
congress
intended
treat
retaliation
age
discrimination
complaints
problem
dealt
primarily
administrative
procedures
rather
judicial
process
first
instance
confirmed
congress
passage
civil
service
reform
act
csra
stat
csra
amended
detailed
comprehensive
antiretaliation
provision
generally
makes
unlawful
executive
branch
employers
take
fail
take
threaten
take
fail
take
personnel
action
employee
applicant
employment
exercise
appeal
complaint
grievance
right
granted
law
rule
regulation
testifying
otherwise
lawfully
assisting
individual
exercise
right
referred
subparagraph
antiretaliation
provision
plainly
applies
retaliation
exercising
rights
civil
rights
statutes
including
adea
supported
host
administrative
remedies
alleged
retaliation
results
adverse
actions
removal
suspension
days
reduction
pay
see
appeal
taken
directly
merit
systems
protection
board
mspb
judicial
review
appeals
federal
circuit
retaliation
claims
based
less
serious
allegations
first
investigated
office
special
counsel
office
finds
reasonable
grounds
supporting
retaliation
charge
must
report
determination
may
seek
corrective
action
mspb
judicial
review
federal
circuit
available
events
upon
finding
retaliation
fact
occurred
mspb
authority
order
corrective
action
order
attorney
fees
appeal
discipline
federal
employees
responsible
retaliatory
acts
sure
csra
enacted
nevertheless
explained
context
federal
employee
remedies
classic
judicial
task
reconciling
many
laws
enacted
time
getting
sense
combination
necessarily
assumes
implications
statute
may
altered
implications
later
statute
fausto
precisely
situation
indeed
particularly
true
respect
congress
regulation
federal
employment
explained
csra
integrated
scheme
administrative
judicial
review
designed
balance
legitimate
interests
various
categories
federal
employees
needs
sound
efficient
administration
perhaps
csra
civil
service
remedies
effective
individual
damages
remedy
obtained
federal
bush
perhaps
quicker
familiar
administrative
remedy
effective
practical
matter
issue
cf
question
whether
judicial
remedy
federal
employer
first
amendment
violation
implied
obviously
answered
simply
noting
existing
remedies
provide
complete
relief
plaintiff
csra
establishes
elaborate
comprehensive
scheme
encompasses
substantive
provisions
forbidding
arbitrary
action
supervisors
procedures
administrative
judicial
improper
action
may
redressed
retaliation
general
matter
already
addressed
federal
employees
read
judicial
remedy
retaliation
congress
developed
considerable
familiarity
balancing
governmental
efficiency
rights
employees
chose
provide
detailed
administrative
one
question
whether
ban
discrimination
based
protected
status
age
also
read
encompass
ban
retaliation
answered
careful
scrutiny
particular
provision
question
case
analysis
statutory
language
broader
scheme
part
confirms
congress
intend
implicitly
create
judicial
remedy
retaliation
federal
employees
expressly
employees
congress
sloppy
creating
distinction
good
reason
federal
workplace
governed
comprehensive
regulation
congress
well
aware
private
sector
reasons
affirm
judgment
appeals
myrna
petitioner
john
potter
postmaster
general
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
may
justice
thomas
justice
scalia
joins
dissenting
join
part
chief
justice
dissent
write
separately
reiterate
view
jackson
birmingham
bd
incorrectly
conflated
concepts
retaliation
discrimination
text
provision
age
discrimination
employment
act
clear
prohibits
discrimination
based
age
supp
retaliation
discrimination
basis
sex
jackson
supra
thomas
dissenting
discrimination
based
race
cbocs
west
humphries
ante
thomas
dissenting
certainly
discrimination
based
age
provides
basis
implying
private
right
action
retaliation
claims
context
reaffirms
plain
meaning
see
ante
opinion
roberts
affirm
judgment
footnotes
suggesting
retreated
reasoning
sullivan
jackson
chief
justice
citing
burlington
white
since
explained
antidiscrimination
antiretaliation
provisions
indeed
conceptually
distinct
serve
distinct
purposes
post
dissenting
opinion
explains
today
cbocs
west
humphries
ante
burlington
used
distinction
help
explain
congress
might
wanted
explicit
title
vii
antiretaliation
provision
sweep
broadly
include
conduct
outside
workplace
substantive
title
vii
antidiscrimination
provision
burlington
suggest
congress
must
separate
two
events
situation
quite
different
faced
lehman
nakshian
private
provisions
adea
already
existed
single
piece
legislation
amendments
adea
added
provision
conferring
right
adea
suits
failed
include
similar
provision
suits
see
age
discrimination
employment
act
amendments
stat
section
provides
employer
practices
shall
unlawful
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
age
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
age
reduce
wage
rate
employee
order
comply
chapter
provision
title
vii
incorporate
provision
title
vii
incorporate
remedial
provision
authorizes
relief
violation
petitioner
argues
remedial
provision
shows
congress
meant
title
vii
provision
broad
prohibition
discrimination
based
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
reach
retaliation
otherwise
provision
banning
retaliation
federal
sector
thus
way
relief
retaliation
awarded
brief
petitioner
federal
government
however
declined
take
position
question
whether
title
vii
bans
retaliation
federal
employment
see
tr
oral
arg
issue
us
case
government
theory
absence
provision
specifically
banning
retaliation
gives
rise
inference
supp
ban
retaliation
lead
logically
strange
conclusion
also
forbid
job
notices
advertisements
unlike
ed
fails
mention
practices
expressly
respondent
asks
us
infer
sup
proscribe
retaliation
congress
made
adea
applicable
federal
government
congress
simply
subject
federal
government
adea
provisions
amending
definition
employer
include
respondent
contends
similar
inference
may
drawn
fact
congress
added
fair
labor
standards
act
flsa
provision
specifically
making
unlawful
retaliate
employee
attempting
vindicate
flsa
rights
see
arguments
fail
appreciate
significance
broad
prohibition
discrimination
based
age
congress
good
reason
expect
broad
ban
interpreted
way
sullivan
little
hunting
park
interpreted
broad
ban
racial
discrimination
inference
respondent
asks
us
draw
unfounded
footnotes
extent
disagreement
whether
sullivan
little
hunting
park
really
retaliation
case
whether
dealt
standing
view
put
forth
day
jackson
birmingham
bd
compare
thomas
dissenting
whatever
merits
disagreement
accept
jackson
interpretation
matter
stare
decisis
see
cbocs
west
humphries
ante
views
discussion
burlington
uggesting
retreated
reasoning
sullivan
jackson
ante
bit
discussion
simply
points
burlington
plainly
said
distinction
discrimination
retaliation
claims
mean
congress
address
provision
held
sullivan
jackson
hold
today
cbocs
west
ante
confirm
congress
may
choose
separate
two
provision
adea
well
portion
title
vii
interpreted
burlington
makes
clear
neither
csra
cover
employees
congress
executive
office
president
executive
residence
white
house
see
congress
expressly
extended
protections
adea
employees
congress
white
house
provided
express
retaliation
remedy
postal
service
employer
operates
personnel
system
postal
service
employee
labor
relations
manual
elm
prohibits
action
event
course
conduct
subjects
person
reprisal
prior
involvement
eeo
activity
elm
pp
june