Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
Issues
Whether, when an employee sues his employer for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the employee or the employer bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the employee's age was the determining cause of the employer's conduct.
Jack Gross sued his employer FBL Financial Group, Inc. ("FBL") in 2004, claiming that FBL had demoted him due to his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Under the trial judge's instructions to the jury, Gross had to prove by circumstantial or direct evidence that his age was a motivating factor in FBL's decision to demote him. The burden then shifted to FBL to prove that Gross's age was not the determining factor, and that it would have demoted Gross regardless of his age. The jury ultimately found for Gross. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ("Price Waterhouse") requires plaintiffs to present direct evidence to shift the burden to the defendant, and that Gross had presented only circumstantial evidence. Though Price Waterhouse dealt with Title VII claims, the Eighth Circuit held that ADEA claims should be treated similarly and rejected Gross's claim that Price Waterhouse no longer applied. In this case, the Supreme Court may determine the applicability of Price Waterhouse and the burden of proof in ADEA cases.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Must a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case?
Jack Gross began working at FBL Financial Group, Inc. ("FBL") in 1987. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. ("Gross"), 526 F.3d 356, 358 (8th Cir. 2007).