A recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies that employees suing for age bias under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must show that age bias was the motivating reason for the action taken against the employee.
Under both California law and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee who alleges that he or she was treated differently than other employees can prove a discrimination claim by showing that the employer’s bias was either (1) the actual motive for taking action against an employee, or (2) was one of the motivations for taking the disputed action. This second category is referred to as “mixed-motive” cases.
Distinguishing between the language of Title VII and the ADEA, the Supreme Court ruled in Gross v. FPL Financial that the ADEA requires employees to show that age bias was the sole reason for taking an adverse action against an employee. In contrast, Congress amended Title VII (covering bias claims involving race, national origin, gender, and religion) to specifically allow mixed-motive cases. Therefore, this ruling applies only to age bias cases.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
This decision represents a significant victory for employers who are sued under the federal ADEA, setting a high standard of proof for employees. However, current California law under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) generally permits mixed-motive cases. Because the Supreme Court’s decision in this case turned on the specific statutory language of the ADEA, it’s unlikely to have an effect on cases brought under California law.
We’ll have more on this case in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor.