October 30, 2020

Volume X, Number 304

Advertisement

October 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 27, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Decision Impacts Federal Age Discrimination Claims

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against an employee “because of” the employee’s age. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, decided on June 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that a plaintiff alleging age discrimination under the ADEA must thus prove that age was the cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The Supreme Court rejected the notion that a plaintiff could establish discrimination by showing age was a motivating factor in the decision. The Supreme Court further rejected the notion that the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer in cases involving mixed motives for the employment decision.

In Title VII claims, by contrast, a plaintiff need only establish that race, religion, sex, or national origin was a “motivating factor” in the employment decision. If a plaintiff has done so, she will prevail unless the employer then establishes that the adverse action would have been taken regardless of the race, religion, sex, or national origin of the employee.

The Gross majority based its decision on differences in the statutory language of the ADEA and Title VII, the latter of which expressly authorizes discrimination claims where an improper consideration is “a motivating factor” for the adverse employment decision. The ADEA contains no such language.

Gross thus puts federal age discrimination claims on a different footing than other employment discrimination claims, at least concerning the burdens of proof and persuasion. As the difference is based solely on the Supreme Court majority’s interpretation respecting the differences in the statutory provisions, Congress can, if it chooses, put age discrimination claims on an equal footing with other employment discrimination claims by amending the ADEA to comport with Title VII.

©2009 Clark & Trevithick. A Professional Corporation. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume , Number 217
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David S. Olson, Business Litigation Attorney, Clark and Trevithick Law firm

David Olson is a successful trial attorney who focuses on business litigation. He has represented clients in disputes pertaining to real estate, trade secret / unfair competition, partnership, employment, internet, and contract matters. He is admitted to practice before all courts of the States of California and Florida, the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the United States District Court for the Central and Southern Districts of California.

David did his undergraduate work at the University...

213-629-5700
Advertisement
Advertisement