From:
California Labor amp Employment Law Blog
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...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Supreme Court: Mixed motives jury instruction quotis never proper in an ADEA casequot
The US Supreme Court decided today 5-4 that a mixed motives jury
instruction quotis never proper in an ADEA case.quot Gross v. FBL
Financial Services US Supreme Court 06182009 Gross sued claiming
that his demotion was in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ADEA, and won a jury verdict. The 8th Circuit
reversed on the ground that the jury had been improperly instructed
under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490
US 228 1989. The US Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit decision.
The Court said: quotThe parties have asked us to decide whether a
plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order
to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII
discrimination case.. Before reaching this question, however, we
must first determi...
Employers Get Big Win at Supreme Court and Why Employers Should Ignore It
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 Clarence Thomas, the
U.S. Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. has
held that a plain...
SCOTUS - Age discrimination: Burden of proof never shifts
Before today, it was quite common for courts to use Title VIIs
burden-shifting analysis when dealing with age discrimination ADEA
cases. Put that into the past. The US Supreme Court has spoken,
voting 5 to 4. Gross v. FBL Financial Services US Supreme Court
06182009 Full text Official Syllabus Briefs Take a discharge case
as an example. In Title VII cases, the usual proof methods are that
the employee first shows that there is an inference of unlawful
discrimination, and then the employer has the burden of producing
evidence that the discharge was for a lawful reason. Sometimes, in
what are called quotmixed motivesquot cases, the burden of proof
can shift to the employer. My explanation is hopelessly short and
incomplete, I know. However, in an ADEA case, the rules are
different be...
Supreme Court Decides that Title VII Mixed-Motives Analysis Does Not Apply to Age Discrimination Claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.,
No. 08-441 June 18, 2009 has held that the burden-shifting analysis
that is available in so-called mixed-motives cases under Title VII
does not apply to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ADEA. Rather, the Court held that a plaintiff bringing a
disparate treatment claim under the ADEA bears the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her age was
the quotbut-forquot cause of the challenged adverse employment
action. In other words, even if there is some evidence that age was
a factor in the challenged employment decision, the plaintiff
cannot prevail unless he or she can prove that, but for his or her
age, the employer would not have taken the challenged action.
New United States Supreme Court Decision Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. Helps Employers In ADEA Cases.
In a key victory for employers, the United States Supreme Court
held on June 18, 2009, that a plaintiff bringing an Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA disparate treatment claim
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the
but-for cause of the challenged adverse employment action. This
ruling also establishes that the burden of persuasion does not
shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action
regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence
that age was one of the motivating factors in that decision. pa
href"http:feedads.g.doubleclick.netadPpsvATzKwCuBHjAShcvdcMHiI0da"img
src"http:feedads.g.doubleclick.netadPpsvATzKwCuBHjAShcvdcMHiI0di"
border"0" ismap"true"imgabr a href"http:feedads.g.doub...
