By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In a turnabout, business groups are complaining about a Supreme Court that they say has become too friendly to workers.

In two decisions Tuesday, conservative and liberal justices joined to make it easier for workers to sue over retaliation that follows their complaints about discrimination.

One case involved a private employer, Cracker Barrel, and race. The other focused on a federal worker and age. In both, the court took an expansive view of workers' rights and avoided the narrow, ideology-based positions that marked its last term.

"Our batting average this term is pretty bad in labor and employment cases," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president Robin Conrad.

Tuesday, the justices read parts of an 1860s civil-rights act and the nation's main anti-age-bias law to include the right to sue over reprisals, even though neither provision expressly prohibits retaliation.

Hon. Stephen Breyer, writing for the court in a case involving a black Cracker Barrel employee who was fired, said that previous Supreme Court decisions and congressional action make clear that retaliation is covered. Cracker Barrel is a subsidiary of CBRL Group Inc., based in Lebanon, Tenn.

The idea that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well-embedded in the law," Breyer said in the 7-2 ruling.

The outcomes contrasted with rulings last term in which conservative majorities insisted on literal readings of federal laws over the objections of liberal dissenters who favored more expansive interpretations.

Hon. Samuel Alito and Hon. Anthony Kennedy joined their liberal colleagues in both rulings. Alito wrote the opinion allowing a federal employee to pursue retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The vote in that case was 6-3.

Chief Justice Hon. John Roberts dissented in the age case but was part of the majority in the race-retaliation case.

Roberts and Alito "have been so true to the plain language of the statute. I was really surprised," said Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation.

Hon. Antonin Scalia and Hon. Clarence Thomas dissented in both cases. "Retaliation is not discrimination based on race," Thomas wrote in the Cracker Barrel case.

The decisions displayed two emerging trends of the term - rulings favorable to workers in employment-discrimination cases and the absence of 5-4 decisions. There has been only one 5-4 decision so far.

Conrad said she has been puzzled by the recent rulings against employers, particularly after last term's string of victories for business interests. She said the court may have been stung by the reaction to the 5-4 decision last year against Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. employee. In an opinion written by Alito, the court threw out Ledbetter's pay-discrimination claim because she missed a strict deadline.

The Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business argued that the absence of an explicit prohibition on retaliation was significant and said employees should have to file suit under another law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Bush administration was on the side of the workers in the Cracker Barrel case.

The case grew out of the firing of a black associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley, Ill. Hedrick Humphries claimed he was fired after he complained about race discrimination by other Cracker Barrel supervisors.

Humphries filed a lawsuit claiming both discrimination and retaliation. Both claims were dismissed by a federal judge, and only the retaliation claim was appealed.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Humphries could pursue his retaliation claim under section 1981. The high court upheld that ruling.

In the age-retaliation case, Alito concluded for the court that a U.S. Postal Service employee may pursue her lawsuit.

The anti-age-bias law does specifically bar reprisals against private-sector employees who complain about discrimination, but it is silent as to federal workers. Alito said the law applies to both categories of employees.

The case involves Myrna Gomez-Perez, a postal worker in Puerto Rico who alleged that she was being discriminated against because of her age. Gomez-Perez, then 45, said that after she filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, she suffered a "series of reprisals."

Gomez-Perez sued under the ADEA, claiming retaliation in violation of the law.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a lower court's dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.

The cases are Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 06-1321, and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 06-1431.