Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. :: 557 U.S. 167.
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit illustrates how the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. serves to prevent previously-viable claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”) from reaching trial. In Kelly v.
FBL Financial Services, Inc. I. Introduction This paper contains a discussion on the litigation of cases of employment discrimination especially the ones under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The paper discusses the reasoning established in the case Gross v.
Date: 05-28-2008 Case Style: Jack Gross v. FBL Financial Services. Case Number: 07-1490 Judge: Colloton Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from the Southern District of Iowa, Polk County Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown Defendant's Attorney: Unknown Description: FBL Financial Group (FBL) appeals a jury verdict in favor of Jack Gross, an employee who alleged.
In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a Disparate impact claims are unavailable under ADEA e) b. Disparate treatment claims are unavailable under ADEA C. Punitive damages are unavailable under ADEA d.
FBL Financial might signal that the issue eventually may be headed back to the Supreme Court. A lower court erred when it declined to apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis at the summary judgment stage of an Army employee’s age discrimination case, and instead required ultimate evidence of “but-for” causation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held Jan. 12 on.
As age-discrimination claims increase, in-house counsel will have to carefully analyze the Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. decision's impact on their clients' hiring and employment.
Scholarly and public attention to the burden of proof and jury instructions has increased dramatically since the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. Gross holds that the so-called mixed-motive jury instruction, which we call the motivating factor instruction, is not available in age, and possibly disability and retaliation cases.