ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: Ross' Employment Law Blog

Mixed-motive under the ADEA

ADVERTISEMENTS

Gross v. FBL Financial (8th Cir 05/14/2008) holds that in ADEA cases the 1989 decision in Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228, controls how the jury should be instructed regarding the employer's mixed-motive.

It is error to use the Title VII "motivating factor" test that was added to Title VII (but not added to the ADEA) by the Civil Rights Act of 1991: 42 USC Section 2000e-2(m).

Gross sued the employer, asserting an age discrimination (discriminatory demotion) claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Gross prevailed after a jury trial, but the 8th Circuit reversed.

In Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 (1989), a plurality of the United States Supreme Court set forth the analysis applicable to "mixed motive" cases. Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in that Title VII case is generally seen as the controlling opinion setting forth the governing rule of law.

Under that analysis, in order to be entitled to a mixed-motive jury instruction, an employee must produce "direct evidence."

Subsequently, Title VII was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 via the addition of 42 USC Section 2000e-2(m). Section 2000e -2(m) superseded Price-Waterhouse by making "motivating factor" (rather than "direct evidence") the touchstone for mixed-motive analysis for Title VII discrimination cases.

The 8th Circuit held that "Section 2000e-2(m) does not apply to claims arising under the ADEA." The court reasoned that "[b]y its terms, the new section applies only to employment practices in which 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' was a motivating factor." The court noted "[w]hen Congress amended Title VII by adding Section 2000e-2(m), it did not make a corresponding change to the ADEA, although it did address the ADEA elsewhere in the 1991 Act."

Because the jury in Gross' case was instructed consistent with Section 2000e-2(m) rather than Price-Waterhouse, the 8th Circuit reversed.

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on May 16, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 10/31/26 14:57:13)