Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Argued March 31, 2009 Decided June 18, 2009 | |||||||
Full case name | Jack Gross, Petitioner v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. | ||||||
Docket nos. | 08-441 | ||||||
Citations | |||||||
Holding | |||||||
A plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action. | |||||||
Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
Case opinions | |||||||
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito | ||||||
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer | ||||||
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg | ||||||
Laws applied | |||||||
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 |
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, involving the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Jack Gross, an employee of FBL Financial Services, Inc., was transferred to another position and a former subordinate took on many of Gross' old responsibilities. They both received the same compensation, but Gross believed his reassignment was a demotion. Gross brought suit against FBL in April 2004 in District Court, claiming ADEA violations. The court found in his favor and awarded him $46,945 in lost compensation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, finding that a plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.