Back in June of 2009, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Inc. that many observers felt would make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail on age discrimination claims. Gross dealt with technical, burden of proof issues. Most importantly, the decision provided that: (2) a plaintiff who sues under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") must prove that he/she was fired "because of" age, i.e. that age was the "but for" reason for the termination; and, (2) the plaintiff always has the burden of proof in an ADEA case - the burden never shifts to the defendant to show that it would have made the same decision absent any consideration of the plaintiff's age. This framework differs from Title VII, which requires that a plaintiff show only that a protected characteristic (race, sex, etc...) was "a motivating factor". If the plaintiff in a Title VII case makes that showing, the burden then shifts to the defendant to justify its decision.

When Gross came down, there was talk of Congress passing legislation to overturn it, much the same way it acted to overturn the Eleventh Circuit's Lily Ledbetter decision. Many may recall that President Obama made Ledbetter a big campaign issue in 2008. But, so far Congress has done nothing on Gross. But, just this week three senators (Harkin, Grassley, and Leahy) introduced a bill that would overturn Gross, and make the burden of proof for ADEA cases the same as the burden for Title VII cases.

My question is, why now? At least in my experience, the Gross decision has had a relatively minor practical effect on ADEA litigation. It has affected the ADEA jury instructions, but little else. On the whole, it has not made it easier for defendants to get age discrimination cases dismissed (via summary judgment or any other avenue) before trial. And, any good plaintiff's attorney would probably like their chances in an age discrimination jury trial, regardless of what technical burden of proof language is contained in the jury instructions.

This is a bi-partisan bill, and it has the support of the AARP and other influential groups. And, much like Ledbetter, in a campaign year this issue might have some traction for the president. Still, at least in my view, Gross has been much ado about nothing and, even if passed, this bill will not have earth shattering effects.

This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.

Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets. The Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior managers.