High court gives workers protection from retaliation

Last year, the court was criticized by liberals for ignoring those realities when it threw out a pay-discrimination suit from Lilly Ledbetter, a female manager from Alabama who had been paid far less than men in the same job. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that she had failed to cite recent acts of bias as required by the text of the law.

Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the reaction to that ruling might explain Tuesday's decisions. "I think the court was stung by the reaction to Ledbetter," she said.

She added that Tuesday's ruling could encourage suits against companies based on the 19th century law because it lacked the same time limits for filing complaints and might lead to larger damage awards.

Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business agreed, calling the decisions "extremely disappointing for the small-business community. Retaliation claims will be a boon for trial lawyers."

The case of the former Cracker Barrel employee had prompted worries from civil rights advocates last year when the justices voted to hear the company's appeal. They feared the case would lead to a ruling that further limited legal remedies for bias in the workplace.

The case had already taken an unusual turn. Hedrick Humphries, the former Cracker Barrel assistant manager, was representing himself, and a judge dismissed his claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the most commonly used anti-discrimination measure -- because he had failed to pay certain court fees on time.

But Humphries also had cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its provision in the year following that said black people in the United States "shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens."

In the past, this law has come into play in cases where modern civil rights statutes do not apply. In 1976, the court relied on the old statute to give black parents a right to sue white academies that closed their doors to their children because of their race.

At issue then was whether this long-standing right to make contracts free of racial bias also included a right to be protected from bias that arises later.

Lawyers for Cracker Barrel argued that the 19th century law did not refer to retaliation and that its words should not be read to stretch so far.