In the 2007 case of Myrna Gomez-Perez v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gomez-Perez, a postal worker who alleged that she had been subjected to retaliation after filing an age discrimination complaint against her employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS). The court held that federal employees are protected from retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discriminatory employment practices based on age. This decision was significant because it clarified and expanded upon previous rulings regarding employee protections under anti-discrimination laws.

In the case of Myrna Gomez-Perez v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General (2007), Justice Samuel Alito delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation of federal law was incorrect in concluding that it prohibits retaliation against an employee who complains about age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They contended that Congress did not explicitly include protection from retaliation within ADEA unlike other anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII or ADA where explicit provisions exist to protect employees from retaliatory actions for filing complaints. The dissenters believed this omission was intentional and thus should be respected by the court instead of assuming Congress intended to include such protections implicitly.