The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision that arguably raises the bar for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that it is not enough to establish liability under the ADEA by proving that age was simply a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision. Rather, in order to prevail, a plaintiff must show that his or her age was the “but for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. That is, age must be “the reason” that the employer decided to act.
The Court’s decision is a significant departure from the law applicable to Title VII claims, in which mixed-motive claims are specifically allowed. A Title VII plaintiff can prove intentional discrimination by proving that a characteristic protected by Title VII, such as race, was one “motivating factor” in the adverse employment action. Given such a showing, liability is established, and the employer may only limit the available remedies if the employer can show that it would have taken the same adverse employment action regardless of age.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision appears to lighten the risk of liability for employers, managers are still wise to base employment decisions on objective, non-discriminatory facts. ELI®’s flagship harassment and discrimination training program, Civil Treatment® for Managers, teaches participants about relevant workplace issues, including fair employment practices and documentation. To learn more about ELI’s catalogue of programs, visit http://www.eliinc.com.
About ELI®
Headquartered in Atlanta, ELI specializes in harassment and sexual harassment training, discrimination training, wage and hour compliance training, union avoidance training, and other kinds of workplace training. For more information, visit the ELI website at http://www.eliinc.com.
