This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioner argues that it is improper to narrow the scope of a stand‑alone general discrimination ban that does not identify specific practices.
The government argues that Congress created a limited scheme that gives full judicial remedies only to a small group of federal employees, leaving many others without any remedy.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Myrna Gomez‑Pérez)
According to Petitioner, it is improper to narrow the scope of a general discrimination ban that does not identify specific practices.
According to Petitioner, Congress could have added federal employers to the definition of “employer” and applied the private‑sector regime, but instead created a stand‑alone prohibition.
According to Mr. Guerra, it makes no sense to give some employees remedies under one scheme while leaving others with none.
According to Mr. Guerra, employees who complain about age discrimination and are then fired in retaliation have no remedy.
Respondent (U.S. Government / Postmaster General)
According to Government, Congress decided to treat retaliation against federal workers who complain of age discrimination differently from other forms of retaliation, creating a four‑part patchwork scheme.
According to Mr. Garre, the “any employee” language in section 623d shows that Congress intended the anti‑retaliation provision to cover all employees, not just those over 40.
According to Mr. Garre, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act does not expressly prohibit retaliation in the federal sector and should not be read to do so.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:04 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia asked, “Excuse me. By its plain terms?”
According to Justice Scalia, he followed with, “Read it to me, would you?”
Justice Alito asked why Congress took the drafting approach it did.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, he inquired about review by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Justice Breyer asked whether a retaliation claim could proceed through the EEOC and then to court.
- [1] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 1
- [2] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 4
- [3] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 4
- [4] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 8
- [5] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 21
- [6] df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdf, p. 46
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- df8b5066e3fb91d6b5bf-r1-4ee85ab0f9b2d14f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.