Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
- Decided
- June 18, 2009
- Docket
- 08-441
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,790 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the language “because of’ requires a “ ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse decision” under ADEA retaliation claims — United States v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2017)
- holding that under Age Discrimination in Employment Act plaintiff must prove that age was “ ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged employer decision” — Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Central School District (2014)
- holding that the court “assu$ne[s], without deciding, that the .ÁDEA’s but for standard of causation also applies tó age discrimination claims brought under the NYSHRL” — Arnold v. Research Foundation for the State University of New York (2016)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by the petitioner in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of age dis [*170] crimination in order to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction in a suit brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. Because we hold that such a jury instruction is never proper in an ADEA case, we vacate the decision below.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.