Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 DECEMBER 2008

Employment Discrimination—Age Discrimination In Employment Act

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

Employment discrimination suits often involve "mixed motives." In many cases there is evidence that the employment decision giving rise to the suit was motivated by a combination of lawful and unlawful motives.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published December 5, 2008

Keywords: employment discrimination, age discrimination, Employment Act, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Desert Palace, Costa, Gross

Employment discrimination suits often involve "mixed motives." In many cases there is evidence that the employment decision giving rise to the suit was motivated by a combination of lawful and unlawful motives. Who prevails in such cases—the plaintiff or defendant—will frequently depend on which side bears the burden of persuasion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441, to decide whether a plaintiff in a non-Title VII employment discrimination case must present "direct evidence" of discrimination to obtain a "mixed-motive" jury instruction that shifts the burden of persuasion to the defendant.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from