The Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc. (pdf) caused an outcry among those concerned that its new standard of proof would make it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to prove ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) violations.
There were immediate calls by advocacy groups and some politicians for legislation to require courts to return to the previous standard. But decisions of federal courts of appeal in the wake of Gross suggest that its initial effect has been minimal. This article briefly analyzes Gross and decisions that followed, and then suggests some opportunities for employers to make better use of the new standard.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
