“OK, Boomer” Gets the Supreme Court Spotlight It Deserves

Chief Justice John Roberts referenced the popular phrase “OK, boomer” in a recent case Babb v. Wilkie (Source)

Last Wednesday, Jan. 15, an age discrimination case got a little more exciting when Chief Justice John Roberts referenced the recently popular phrase, “OK, boomer” in the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiff, Norris Babb, argued that she had been discriminated against and left out of promotion opportunities, potential raises and duties of her position due to her age. To gauge her position, Roberts questioned whether the hypothetical use of the phrase during the hiring process by a younger manager would be age discrimination. The plaintiff’s attorney, Roman Martinez, answered Chief Justice Roberts in the affirmative, saying that the phrase “OK, boomer” conveys “unflattering things about [the potential employee] in age” and would count as discrimination.

“OK, boomer” stems from TikTok—a short-form video streaming service—in one video where an older man says, “[the] millennials and the Generation Z have the Peter Pan syndrome. They don’t ever want to grow up.” The response from the video’s creator is simple, “OK, boomer,” referring to the Baby Boomer generation. The catchphrase has become a rallying cry for frustrated members of Generation Z (often referred to as Gen Z) and millennials who are fed up with the perceived inaction and dismissiveness of the older generation. Joshua Citarella, an online researcher (and a millennial himself) explains the importance of the phrase beyond simply that of an Internet meme, by saying that “Gen Z is going to be the first generation to have a lower quality of life than the generation before them…Previous generations have left Generation Z with the short end of the stick.” “OK, boomer” has been such a successful response because it simultaneously shuts down any further remarks from said Boomers, and represents the cynicism and resignation of younger generations towards those that came before them—all wrapped up in one catchy phrase.

However, John Kelly, Dictionary.com research editor, says that the phrase is not an ageist “slur” because “people in positions of power do not have slurs [attacking them] the way people in minority groups do.” This analysis questions Martinez’s assertion to the Supreme Court that the phrase, and the characteristics that it conveys about a specific age group, would be considered discrimination. Furthermore, Kelly defines the term not as a catch-all for every Baby Boomer, but rather, “an older, angry white male who is shaking his fist at the sky… [Boomers] have close-minded opinions, are resistant to change… and are generally out of touch with how their behaviors affect other people.” If “OK, boomer” does indeed connote this definition, it is difficult to see how it could be classified as discriminatory when used on a hypothetical hiree, and not as a description of characteristics that would be “reasonably necessary” bases on which not to hire someone, according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Ultimately, the legal issue at the heart of the discrimination case is how strictly the standards in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act should be applied. Babb is a federal employee of the Department of Veteran Affairs, so the defendant in this case is the U.S. government, bringing into the foreground the ability of public employees to sue their employers as well as private ones. Yet coverage of this case has been overwhelmingly focused on Justice Roberts’ mention of the phrase “OK, boomer,” emphasizing the significance the phrase has gained as it has transcended its original meme status and has become a symbol for the frustration of a generation.

The final ruling in the case will be published in the spring. It will be interesting to note the ultimate opinion the Supreme Court takes after Chief Justice Roberts invoked the phrase, and to see how this decision will affect future interpretation of the Age Discrimination Act.