Why Is Age Discrimination So Complicated?
There is an act of congress called the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The purpose of that law is to outlaw age discrimination. It follows that an employer that commits age discrimination should be liable for violating the ADEA. But the United States Supreme Court, some time ago, came up with a brilliant concept called “mixed motive” analysis. This theory gave an out to employers who commit discrimination. It says that even if a company fires an employee due to advanced age, it can escape liability if the victim would have been fired anyway. To make an analogy, this would be like saying that a person can escape liability for murder so long as the victim would have died at that time anyway from another cause.
In a case called Gross v FBL Financial Services, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it should continue watering down the ADEA or instead follow common sense and simply outlaw age discrimination. Murder is illegal and it does not matter if the victim would have died anyway. Likewise, companies that commit age discrimination should be held liable – no matter what. What benefit could possibly come from giving an out to companies that commit age bias? Keep it simple and keep it illegal. Nothing good comes from age discrimination. If you would like to read more about this case and hear other points of view, please see The Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Scotusblog, and The Employee Rights Post.
