Noris Babb v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 16-16492 (11th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 16, 2018.
Download PDF
Case: 16-16492 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16492 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01732-VMC-TBM NORIS BABB, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (April 24, 2020) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Case: 16-16492 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 2 of 2 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and SILER,* Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Dr. Noris Babb appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on each of her claims in this case, which she raises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Consistent with—and for the reasons stated in—our previous opinion, see Babb v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 743 F. App’x 280 (11th Cir. 2018), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Babb’s Title VII retaliation claim and hostile-work-environment claim, and we reverse and remand the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Babb’s Title VII genderdiscrimination claim. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in this case, however, see Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), we now reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Babb’s ADEA age-discrimination claim and remand for consideration consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part. * Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
