Supreme Court Gives Employers Big Age Discrimination Victory

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided 5-4 a significant age discrimination case. In a big growth area of discrimination law, this case provides employers a little breathing room, at least for the time being.

In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Court addressed whether an employee must prove that age was “the” motivating factor for an employer’s action against him or “a” motivating factor. Courts usually say “a” motivating factor.

In an earlier case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), a greatly splintered Court had decided that in cases filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employee had to prove that race, color, sex, religion or national origin was a motivating factor. If other legitimate factors were motivating as well (“mixed motives”), the employer then had the burden of proving it would have taken the same action regardless of the discriminatory motive.

Subsequently, Congress amended Title VII to provide that an employee proves discrimination if he demonstrates that race, color, sex, religion or national origin was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action, even though other factors also motivated the action. In the Gross case, the Court was asked to apply the same standard to cases filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

A majority of the court said no. The ADEA doesn’t contain the same language as Title VII. The ADEA requires proof that age was the motivating factor. The Court found it significant that Congress didn’t amend the ADEA with the same language it had placed in Title VII.

Although this is a big win for employers, it’s likely that legislation will be introduced in Congress to make the ADEA read the same way Title VII reads on this point. Time will tell.

For other summaries on the case, see Dan Schwartz, Jon Hyman, Delaware Employment Law Blog, Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer, and The Laconic Law Blog.