Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

2009-06-18

Headline: Age discrimination ruling limits ADEA claims: Court requires but‑for causation and bars mixed‑motives jury instructions, making it harder for older workers when age was only one factor.

Holding: The Court held that under the ADEA a plaintiff must prove that age was the but‑for cause of the employer’s adverse action; mixed‑motives jury instructions that shift the burden to employers are not proper.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for older workers to win when age was only one factor
Prevents mixed‑motives jury instructions in ADEA cases
Plaintiffs must prove but‑for causation in ADEA claims

Topics: age discrimination, employment law, burden of proof, mixed-motives, jury instructions

Summary

Background

Jack Gross, a longtime employee at FBL Financial, says he was reassigned in 2003 when he was 54 and lost many duties to a younger colleague. He sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claiming the reassignment was a demotion taken because of his age. At trial the jury was told to decide for Gross if age was a motivating factor, and awarded him $46,945; the Eighth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the ADEA allows so‑called mixed‑motives jury instructions that shift the burden to the employer. Relying on the ADEA's text, the Court held that 'because of' means age must be the but‑for cause of the adverse action. The majority noted that Congress amended Title VII to allow motivating‑factor claims but did not change the ADEA, so Title VII cases do not control ADEA interpretation. The Court therefore said the burden of persuasion never shifts to the employer in an ADEA claim.

Real world impact

The decision means older workers who can show age played a part must still prove age was the but‑for cause. Employers no longer face a shifted burden under the ADEA even when age was one motive. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the ADEA should be read like Title VII so mixed‑motives instructions can apply and that plaintiffs need not produce direct evidence to obtain such an instruction.