On June 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision which gave employers a big win in the employment litigation arena. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441, the Supreme Court addressed mixed-motive cases of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").
Mixed-motive employment cases are cases in which an employee alleges he suffered an adverse employment action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations. In the Gross case, the Plaintiff alleged at trial that he was reassigned and demoted at least in part on his age. The trial court instructed the jury that it must return a verdict for the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff proved that age was a motivating factor in the Defendant's decision to demote the Plaintiff. The jury then found for the Plaintiff. After the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision (requiring the Plaintiff prove age was the motivating factor), the Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and in which Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and held a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challeneged adverse employment action.
You may be asking why the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision when it appears the two were in agreement. Why not simply affirm the Court of Appeals decision? The Court of Appeals decision held the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). In a move sharply criticized by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent, Justice Thomas' opinion held the Court of Appeals was in error because a Price Waterhouse jury instruction is never proper in an ADEA case.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held interpretation of the ADEA is not governed by Title VII decisions such as Price Waterhouse because Title VII is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion. Specifically, Justice Thomas stated "[u]nlike Title VII, the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor." Justice Thomas also pointed out Congress never added such a provision to the ADEA when it amended Title VII, "even though [Congress] contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways..."
Moving forward, therefore, "[t]o establish a disparate-treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA...a plaintiff must prove that age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." Furthermore, "the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse action."
Whatever your belief regarding the soundness of this opinion, employers certainly benefit greatly. This decision also firmly settles the law regarding mixed-motive analysis in ADEA cases (joining the previously-settled law in Title VII cases). The unanswered areas, though, are ADA cases, as well as state discrimination claims and Section 1981 race discrimination and retaliation claims. It looks like we just may be headed to overtime...
The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and in which Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and held a plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challeneged adverse employment action.
You may be asking why the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision when it appears the two were in agreement. Why not simply affirm the Court of Appeals decision? The Court of Appeals decision held the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). In a move sharply criticized by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent, Justice Thomas' opinion held the Court of Appeals was in error because a Price Waterhouse jury instruction is never proper in an ADEA case.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held interpretation of the ADEA is not governed by Title VII decisions such as Price Waterhouse because Title VII is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion. Specifically, Justice Thomas stated "[u]nlike Title VII, the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor." Justice Thomas also pointed out Congress never added such a provision to the ADEA when it amended Title VII, "even though [Congress] contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways..."
Moving forward, therefore, "[t]o establish a disparate-treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA...a plaintiff must prove that age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." Furthermore, "the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse action."
Whatever your belief regarding the soundness of this opinion, employers certainly benefit greatly. This decision also firmly settles the law regarding mixed-motive analysis in ADEA cases (joining the previously-settled law in Title VII cases). The unanswered areas, though, are ADA cases, as well as state discrimination claims and Section 1981 race discrimination and retaliation claims. It looks like we just may be headed to overtime...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment