SUPREME COURT FINDS THE ADEA DOES NOT PERMIT MIXED-MOTIVES AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
Today, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, issued an opinion distinguishing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) from Title VII, finding that the text of the ADEA does not authorize a mixed-motives age discrimination claim. The facts of the case are as follows: Gross began working for FBL in 1971, and in 2001 he was a claims administration director. In 2003, at the age of 54, he was reassigned to the position of claims project coordinator. Many of Gross' job responsibilities were transferred to a newly created position: claims administration manager, which was filled by a female in her early 40's, who had previously been supervised by Gross. Although the two positions paid the same, Gross believed he was demoted because of the reallocation of his former job responsibilities. Gross filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of the ADEA, and at trial, introduced evidence suggesting that his reassignment was based at least in part on his age. FBL alleged that the job reassignment was part of a corporate restructuring and that Gross' new position was better suited to his skills. Gross was awarded $46,945 at trial, and the 8th Circuit reversed and remanded based FBL's challenge of the jury instructions given at trial, that the jury "must return a verdict for Gross if he proved , by a preponderance of the evidence, that FBL "demoted him to claims project coordinator' and that his 'age was a motivating factor' in FBL's decision to demote him". The jury was also instructed that they must find for FBL "if it has been proved by the preponderance of the evidence that FBL would have demoted Gross regardless of his age".
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, found that the burden of persuasion does not shift to the party defending an alleged mixed-motives discrimination claim brought under the ADEA. Justice Thomas further found that the ADEA is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion from Title VII, and as such, Title VII decisions do not control the construction of the ADEA. Finally, the text of the ADEA does not authorize a mixed-motives age discrimination claim.
Practice Pointer. This decision is favorable to employers in the ADEA context. This interpretation will make it more difficult for plaintiff's to successfully prosecute ADEA claims. It is important to remember that Alabama has it's own age discrimination statute, and that this opinion should also apply to cases pending in state court since the statute basically adopts federal law.
Make sure you’ve read our disclaimer prior to commenting.