Blog About: 3rd Cir: Gross ADEA Decision Does Not Eliminate McDonnell Douglas Framework

Related Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. June 18, 2009, a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the quotbut-forquot cause of the alleged adverse employment action Acirc i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individuals age.

By Cindy Caplan and Jing Li On June 18, 2009, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing an age discrimination case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 the ampldquoADEAamprdquo must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the ampldquobut-foramprdquo cause of the employment decision.ampnbsp The Supreme Court further held that even if the employee presents some evidence that age was a factor, the burden of proof does not shift to the employer to show that it would have acted regardless of plaintiffamprsquos age. Plaintiff Jack Gross began working for FBL Financial Group, Inc. ampldquoFBLamprdquo in 1971.ampnbsp In 2003, at age 54, Gross held the position of ampldquoclaims administration director.amprdquoampnbsp Gross was reassig...

Leave it to the Supreme Court to come out with a decision on discrimination while Im attending the ABA Presidential Summit on Diversity which Ill be live-tweeting and blogging from starting on Friday.ampnbsp So, while Ive been tied up for most of the day, the news sites and employment law blogs have been a buzz with summaries of Gross v. FBL Financial Services. ampnbspYou can view my prior coverage of the case here. ampnbsp Each of the blogs has done a good job wrapping up the case, including the Jottings from an Employers Lawyer, LawMemo, The Laconic Law Blog.ampnbsp Whats the case about technically? The Washington Employment Law Update sums it up: In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice ...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued whats likely to be a controversial decision in an age discrimination case. The plaintiff, Jack Gross, sued his employer, FBL Financial Services, claiming that he had been demoted because of his age. A younger employee, whom Gross had trained, was assigned many of his former responsibilities. A federal jury found in favor of Gross, and awarded him almost 47,000. FBL appealed, claiming that the judge gave incorrect jury instructions. The argument boils down to who has to prove what in an age discrimination case. In other types of discrimination cases those brought under Title VII, if the plaintiff can show that the forbidden characteristic played a role in the decision being challenged, the burden of proof shifts to the employer, which must show that it w...

The U.S. Supreme Court held on June 18, 2009, that plaintiffs alleging intentional age discrimination must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the Acircbut-forAcirc cause of the challenged adverse employment action. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Court, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Thomas, clarified that plaintiffs asserting claims of disparate treatment under the ADEA may not prevail based upon proof that age was merely a motivating or substantial factor behind the employment action. Based upon material differences between the text of the ADEA and Title VII, the Court declined GrossAcirc request to extend the lesser burden of persuasion for alleged mixed-motive claims under Title VII to claims of age discrimination.

Share:

Latest Articles