Gross v FBL Financial Services Inc Case

Case Overview

• Case: Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States

• Citation: 557 U.S. 167 (2009)

• Justice Delivering Opinion: Justice Thomas

• Key Issue: Must the plaintiff provide direct evidence of age discrimination to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?

• Holding: Such jury instruction is not proper in ADEA cases.

Background Facts

• Petitioner: Jack Gross, employed since 1971 by FBL Financial Group, Inc.

• Position at Issue: Claims administration director (2001) and later reassigned to claims project coordinator (2003, age 54).

• Significant Changes: Job responsibilities reallocated to a new position held by Lisa Kneeskern, age in early forties.

• Claim: Gross filed suit alleging age discrimination citing the ADEA after being reassigned, claiming it was a demotion.

• FBL's Defense: Claimed the reassignment was due to corporate restructuring and was more suited to Gross’s skills.

Jury Instructions

• The jury was instructed that Gross must prove:

  • FBL demoted him to claims project coordinator, and

  • His age was a motivating factor in the decision.

• FBL also carried the burden of proof if it could show it would have demoted Gross regardless of age.

• Outcome: Jury ruled in favor of Gross, awarding $46,945.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling

• FBL's Challenge: Jury instructions were incorrect, relying on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) which established burden of persuasion in Title VII cases involving mixed motives.

• Court of Appeals Decision: Reversed the lower court ruling, requiring Gross to present "direct evidence" of discrimination for a mixed-motive instruction.

Legal Context

• Key Precedent: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins upheld that if discrimination is a motivating factor, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the same decision would be made without the discriminatory factor.

• Direct Evidence Definition: Required evidence showing a specific link between discriminatory animus and employment decisions.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Key Finding: The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer in ADEA cases, which is materially different from Title VII provisions.

• Statutory Interpretation: The ADEA specifically states that an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on age; language indicates a requirement for a plaintiff to prove age was the “but-for” cause of an adverse action.

  • No evidence found that Congress intended to create a mixed-motive framework for ADEA.

• Textual Meaning: "Because of" mandates proof that the adverse decision was made strictly due to age considerations.

Conclusion of Court

• Final Holding: In ADEA cases, plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of evidence that age was the “but-for” cause of adverse employment actions.

• Outcome: Judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stevens Dissent

• Dissenting View: Age should be treated similarly to other discrimination claims; therefore, mixed-motive instructions are appropriate under ADEA.

• Disagreement with Court: The interpretation should align with established Title VII interpretations, rejecting the “but-for” requirement.

• Congressional Handling: Suggests Congress ratified prior interpretations of mixed motives with the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Justice Breyer Dissent

• Support for Stevens: Agrees with the necessity for mixed-motive instructions and critiques the majority's reasoning.

• Causation Complexity: Challenges the application of "but-for" causation to employment discrimination, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of motives in workplace decisions.