Blog About: Supreme Court Decides that Title VII Mixed-Motives Analysis Does Not Apply to Age Discrimination Claims.

Related Articles

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.

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...

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.

U.S.S.C., Labor amp Employment Law In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA action claiming a wrongful demotion, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the quotbut-forquot cause of the challenged adverse employment action.

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...

Share:

Latest Articles