• 27
  • May
    2010

The Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial, in 2009, overturned previous allowances for age discrimination suits and made it much harder for older workers to prove mistreatment. Hotly contested, it was quickly followed by the Protecting Older Workers Against Age Discrimination Act, which was designed to neutralize the effect of the Gross ruling.

It started in 2003, when Jack Gross was demoted by his employer, FBL Financial. His pay was lowered and most of his duties were passed on to a younger coworker. He filed a lawsuit against the company after this, accusing superiors of age discrimination.

In court, jury members sided with Gross, agreeing that FBL Financial had used age as a motivating factor in his demotion. After the company appealed, Gross saw his victory overturned. In 2009, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the appeals court decision by a margin of 5-to-4.

In making its decision, those Supreme Court justices in the majority stated that simply showing age discrimination as a motivating factor for demotion was not enough. Plaintiffs had to show that age was the deciding factor in a demotion or termination case.

It was a departure from the rules applied to other, similar cases, such as those involving race and sex-discrimination. By raising the burden of proof, critics accused the Supreme Court of cutting the legs out from any future age discrimination suits.

Under the Protecting Older Workers Against Age Discrimination Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial would be overturned. The burden of proof would be lowered to the same level required by other worker discrimination cases.

Related Resource