Supreme Court Increases Plaintiffs’ Burden of Proof in Age Discrimination Cases
In a recent case, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, increased the burden of proving age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Prior to this decision, if a plaintiff could prove that age was a motivating factor in her or his dismissal or demotion, then the burden shifted to the employer to prove that there was a legitimate reason for the employment decision. In Gross, however, the Supreme Court rejected the burden-shifting framework. Instead, plaintiffs will now be required to prove that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment decision, i.e. that age was the deciding reason. The Court’s decision only applies to age discrimination cases. The burden-shifting framework still applies to claims of discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national original - which are covered be a different statute.
This decision will make age discrimination claims under the ADEA more difficult to prove. Workers rarely have access to the decision-making process and are not usually told directly that their demotion or dismissal is due to their age. As a result, obtaining evidence that age was the deciding factor in their employer’s decision will usually be very difficult.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) compared the Court’s decision to its 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., also a 5-4 decision. In that case, the Court held that a woman who had long been paid less than men for the same work could not sue because she had not learned about the discrimination until after the statute of limitations had expired. Congress reversed that decision at the beginning of 2009. It is now up to Congress to reverse another Supreme Court decision that has narrowed federal civil rights protection in the workplace.
