from engaging in all those forms of discrimination identified in §§ 703 and 704 [the private-sector anti-retaliation provision], and others as well.”); Ayon v. Sampson, 547 F.2d 446, 450 (9th Cir.1976) (“We conclude that in enacting § 2000e-16, Congress intended to, and did incorporate into that section the provisions of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting harassment or retaliation for the exercise of those remedial rights established by the Act.”). The Supreme Court, moreover, reached a similar result when interpreting the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), which “was patterned directly after Title VII’s federal-sector discrimination” ban. See Gomez-Perez, 553 U.S. at 487, 491, 128 S.Ct. 1931 (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). And, while it expressly declined to decide
holding age discrimination claim barred holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort holding employees under adeas parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship