The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday concerning the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Gross v. FBL Financial Services,r Case No. 08-441 (June 18, 2009), the court ruled on whether a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must present direct evidence of age discrimination in order to obtain a "mixed motive" jury instruction. The Plaintiff, Gross, claimed that he was demoted, in part, due to his age. The jury was instructed that age could be a motivating factor if it play "a part or a role in [the] decision to demote [him]". Id. at 2.
The Court found that unlike cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where a plaintiff can show that an improper consideration was "a motivating factor," the "ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor." Id.at 6. Thus, the Court found that Title VII case law governing mixed motives was not applicable to ADEA claims. Rather, it found that the ADEA does not authorize mixed motive age discrimination claims and a plaintiff must prove, "by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged employer decision." Id. at 9.
The effect of the decision is to make it significantly harder for plaintiffs to prove a case of age discrimination. It heightens the burden of proof that plaintiffs must meet in order to prevail on an age discrimination claim.
