Limits on Title VII Remedies and ADEA Eligibility for Retired Annuitants in Federal Employment: Laber v. Hegseth

Introduction

Laber v. Hegseth, No. 23-3157 (10th Cir. May 28, 2025), arises from a pro se suit by Stan Laber, a former federal contract specialist and frequent EEO complainant, against Pete Hegseth (Secretary of Defense). Mr. Laber claimed DCMA’s rejection of two of his applications violated Title VII (discrimination and retaliation) and the ADEA (age discrimination). The Tenth Circuit considered two surviving charges:

Charge 2 – Title VII retaliation and religion discrimination for a September 2014 DCMA application, tried to a jury;
Charge 12 – ADEA age discrimination for a December 2014 DCMA application, resolved on summary judgment.

Key issues on appeal were (1) whether voluntary retirement after notice of adverse hiring decisions bars backpay under Title VII, (2) whether “instatement” (retroactive hiring) is a viable remedy, and (3) whether a retired‐annuitant is “qualified” for a federal position under the ADEA federal‐sector provision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in full. It held:

Title VII backpay and instatement: Because Mr. Laber voluntarily retired after becoming aware of his Charge 2 claims, he failed to mitigate damages. He was therefore limited to nominal damages ($1). His late‐filed request to amend for retroactive reinstatement was untimely and properly denied.
ADEA summary judgment: Under 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a) (federal‐sector ADEA), a person must be qualified for the position and show age “tainted” the hiring process. The court found no genuine dispute that DCMA did not authorize hiring any retired annuitant for that permanent vacancy, rendering Mr. Laber unqualified as a matter of law.
No sanctions: Appellant’s request for sanctions against the district court and the Department of Defense was denied as unsupported.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Garrett v. Selby Connor, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) – pro se arguments are construed liberally but do not grant leeway to abandon briefing requirements.
Sundance Energy Okla., LLC v. Dan D. Drilling Corp., 836 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2016) – appeal from denial of Rule 59(e) allows review of underlying summary judgment.
Artes-Roy v. City of Aspen, 31 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 1994) – notice‐of‐appeal contentions.
Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) – Title VII duty to mitigate damages by seeking comparable work.
Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. 399 (2020) – federal‐sector ADEA § 633a(a) demands personnel decisions “untainted” by age; but‐for causation remains relevant to remedy.

Legal Reasoning

1. Duty to Mitigate & Remedy Limits (Title VII)

Title VII requires a successful plaintiff to mitigate damages after an adverse employment action. Ford Motor Co. holds that voluntarily leaving a higher‐pay position for personal reasons defeats backpay. Here, Mr. Laber had notice of DCMA’s adverse hiring decision in December 2014, then retired from a higher‐pay job in January 2015. The district court, and now the Tenth Circuit, found no evidence he left for any reason other than personal choice and thus denied backpay. His attempt to seek retroactive “instatement” as a form of front pay was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) and his pretrial order, and re-litigation under Rule 59(e) was not permitted to circumvent his mitigation failure.

2. Qualification & But-for Causation (ADEA Federal-Sector)

Section 633a(a) protects federal employees aged 40+, prohibiting any age‐based taint in personnel actions. Post-Babb, the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that a plaintiff seeking backpay, compensatory relief, or reinstatement must prove age was a but-for cause of the adverse hiring decision. Mr. Laber’s retired-annuitant status made him ineligible under DCMA policy for a permanent contract administrator vacancy. No exception applied, so he was not “qualified” under McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, and summary judgment was appropriate despite evidence that a selecting official “skirted around” age. Without qualification, no ADEA claim survives.

3. Sanctions Request

Appellant’s unsupported allegations of bias and misconduct by the district court, and claims of deception by the Department of Defense, lacked any citation to law or record. The appellate court denied sanctions in the absence of meritorious grounds.

Impact

Laber v. Hegseth clarifies two important points for federal‐sector employment litigation:

Mitigation Obligations: Federal employees who resign after learning of an unfair hiring decision cannot later recover backpay in Title VII actions. Parties must move to amend remedies early if they seek reinstatement or front pay.
Retired Annuitant Eligibility: Policy bars hiring of retired annuitants for permanent posts unless explicit authorization exists. That status is a disqualifier in ADEA § 633a(a) cases when seeking make-whole relief.

Future litigants will need to plan mitigation and remedy requests carefully and ensure qualification under any internal agency policies before pursuing federal‐sector ADEA claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Backpay & Mitigation: Recoverable earnings lost due to discrimination. You must look for a similarly paying job; leaving voluntarily stops backpay.
Instatement: Retroactive hiring into the denied position. Treated like front pay, it must be timely raised and cannot override mitigation failure.
Retired Annuitant: A former federal employee drawing retirement pay. Agencies often limit hiring such annuitants to temporary roles, making them “unqualified” for permanent jobs.
But-for Causation: Showing that discrimination or age bias directly caused the adverse action you challenge.

Conclusion

Laber v. Hegseth reinforces that federal employees must mitigate Title VII damages by remaining in or obtaining comparable employment once aware of discrimination, and that retired annuitants may be ineligible for permanent federal positions under ADEA § 633a(a). Remedies like backpay and reinstatement depend on strict adherence to mitigation duties and qualification rules. The decision serves as a roadmap for federal‐sector litigants on remedy planning, timing of Rule 59(e) motions, and the interplay between retirement status and discrimination claims.