Age Discrimination Now Harder To Prove

(AP)  The Supreme Court has made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age.

In a 5-4 decision Thursday written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons.

Jack Gross had been a vice president of FBL Financial Services of West Des Moines, Iowa. But in 2001, he lost the title of vice president in a reorganization and two years later, some of his responsibilities were given to a colleague.

Gross sued under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a jury agreed that his age was a motivating factor in his demotion. Gross was awarded $46,945 in lost compensation.

A federal appeals court in St. Louis overturned the verdict, however.

"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," Thomas said in the high court's opinion. "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 the decision."

Anjana Samant, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said this decision will have an impact on whether workers file age discrimination lawsuits. "Whichever party doesn't have the burden of proof is more likely to win," Samant said.

The court's four most liberal justices dissented from the opinion.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the court and the Congress have previously rejected Thomas's 'but-for' standard.

"Given this unambiguous history, it is 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," Stevens said. "I disagree not only with the court's interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared this decision to a 2007 decision that made it more difficult to sue over past pay discrimination. That policy was later reversed by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

"This overreaching by a narrow majority of the court will have a detrimental effect on all Americans and their families," Leahy said. "In these difficult economic times, American workers need to be protected from discrimination."

The case is Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 08-441.

[truthfulworker]

I'd like to raise the issue of reverse age discrimination....
I am a 38 y/o woman. I am pretty, and popular. My manager is a 64 y/o single woman. She is unattractive, and no one likes her because she is miserable. She targeted me because she resents the fact that I am well liked, and she is not.
....Try to prove THAT!!!!! Needless to say, I got canned!!!!!

[John_Merritt]

The convenient truth is this, this financial mess prompted by the machinations of the maniacs in high places has predicated and pre-determined that layoffs will occur. And the best way to thin the herd is start at the top, and high paying people (who just happen to be the eldest) are the likeliest candidates. The burden of responsibility will be on the claimant to prove they were discriminated against. Whereas, the 'company' will state they acted indiscriminately. Hard case to fight and prove. My empathy to the victims of downsizing due to disloyalty based on high earnings. Sad but true.

[jackp32]

I spent 35 yrs as a Human Resources executive and I support the court's ruling. Too many claimants throw out the discrimination word and they do not have a shred of evidence to support their claim. They simply feel that they were discriminated against.

[antoniof123]

I can see the reactionary party will be losing elections for a generation to fix the mess that they made. Hey but look on the bright side those wing nuts will be entertaining us for a generation by screaming and crying and yelling.

I telling you I see another blood bath for the reactionary party know as the Republicans. They are most certainly not conservatives they are reactionary and only care about profit.

[mypatch]

here's a little advice from a retired person. Don't depend on other people for your lively hood. Employers have the right to fire you or demote you at any time for any reason. Make sure you have an ace in the hole. Another means of income. No employer should be told that they must keep an employee or how to make decisions. They don't owe you anything. And you don't owe them anything. Move on and take care of yourself.

[leogorky]

I really dilike the whole notion of the Supreme Court. That these peope are appointed, not elected, and serve until they die is incomprehensible. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You would think that they would be more sensitive to aging workers considering that many of them are two days older than dirt. Yesterday, I heard that they ruled on a case in which they denied someone the right to use new DNA testing (unavailable at the time of his trial) to prove his innocence even though he was willing to pay the cost himself. Now, I don't know if this man is innocent or not, but it seems to me that if he is, the Supreme Court would want to know about it. Instead, an innocent person may remain in prison for something he didn't do. What kind of justice is that?

[mrs_trepidatious]

Ha ha another blow to liberals!

[leogorky]

This is the second post of yours that I've had the misfortune to stumble upon. You seem to be a woman seething with hatred. Instead of commenting on the stories, all you can do is throw in some vague comments to identify your own political agenda. Why are you so paranoid?

[democracy1]

Go away, Mrs Troll

[bytheway59]

Sounds like activists judges to me.

[abbe91]

Dems ... time to act !

[debinok1]

And so goes the battle of true persons and corporate persons. Both being granted the same rights under the constitution(thanks to an older version of the same court)and yet the one that wins the majority of the time is the corporate persons.

[democracy1]

The SCOTUS decision regarding "corporate personhood" has to be one of the most insane decisions ever.