Labor & Employment Law

Supreme Court: Mixed motives jury instruction "is never proper in an ADEA case"

The US Supreme Court decided today (5-4) that a mixed motives jury instruction "is never proper in an ADEA case."

Gross v. FBL Financial Services (US Supreme Court 06/18/2009)

Gross sued claiming that his demotion was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and won a jury verdict. The 8th Circuit reversed on the ground that the jury had been improperly instructed under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 (1989). The US Supreme Court vacated the 8th Circuit decision.

The Court said:

"The parties have asked us to decide whether a plaintiff must 'present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.'. Before reaching this question, however, we must first determine whether the burden of persuasion ever shifts to the party defending an alleged mixed-motives discrimination claim brought under the ADEA. We hold that it does not."

"We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The DISSENT argued that it was "particularly inappropriate for the Court, on its own initiative, to adopt an interpretation of the causation requirement in the ADEA that differs from the established reading of Title VII. I disagree not only with the Court?s interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking. I would simply answer the question presented by the certiorari petition and hold that a plaintiff need not present direct evidence of age discrimination to obtain a mixed-motives instruction."

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on June 18, 2009 (boomark / email).