SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) In enacting section 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 
        (adding section 703(m) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), 
        Congress reaffirmed its understanding that unlawful 
        discrimination is often difficult to detect and prove because 
        discriminators do not usually admit their discrimination and 
        often try to conceal their true motives. Section 703(m) of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly approved so-called ``mixed 
        motive'' claims, providing that an unlawful employment practice 
        is established when a protected characteristic was a motivating 
        factor for any employment practice, even though other factors 
        also motivated the practice.
            (2) Congress enacted amendments to other civil rights 
        statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
        1967 (referred to in this section as the ``ADEA''), the 
        Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation 
        Act of 1973, but Congress did not expressly amend those 
        statutes to address mixed motive discrimination.
            (3) In the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 
        557 U.S. 167 (2009), the Supreme Court held that, because 
        Congress did not expressly amend the ADEA to address mixed 
        motive claims, such claims were unavailable under the ADEA, and 
        instead the complainant bears the burden of proving that a 
        protected characteristic or protected activity was the ``but 
        for'' cause of an unlawful employment practice. This decision 
        has significantly narrowed the scope of protections afforded by 
        the statutes that were not expressly amended in 1991 to address 
        mixed motive claims.
    (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
            (1) to clarify congressional intent that mixed motive 
        claims shall be available, and that a complaining party need 
        not prove that a protected characteristic or protected activity 
        was the ``but for'' cause of an unlawful employment practice, 
        under the ADEA and similar civil rights provisions;
            (2) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Gross 
        decision that Congress' failure to amend any statute other than 
        title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with respect to 
        discrimination claims), in enacting section 107 of the Civil 
        Rights Act of 1991, suggests that Congress intended to disallow 
        mixed motive claims under other statutes; and
            (3) to clarify that complaining parties--
                    (A) may rely on any type or form of admissible 
                evidence to establish their claims of an unlawful 
                employment practice;
                    (B) are not required to demonstrate that the 
                protected characteristic or activity was the sole cause 
                of the employment practice; and
                    (C) may demonstrate an unlawful employment practice 
                through any available method of proof or analytical 
                framework.

SEC. 3. STANDARDS OF PROOF.

    (a) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.--
            (1) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
        consideration of age in employment practices.--Section 4 of the 
        Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) is 
        amended by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    ``(g)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, an unlawful 
practice is established under this Act when the complaining party 
demonstrates that age or an activity protected by subsection (d) was a 
motivating factor for any practice, even though other factors also 
motivated the practice.
    ``(2) In establishing an unlawful practice under this Act, 
including under paragraph (1) or by any other method of proof, a 
complaining party--
            ``(A) may rely on any type or form of admissible evidence 
        and need only produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable 
        trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred under 
        this Act; and
            ``(B) shall not be required to demonstrate that age or an 
        activity protected by subsection (d) was the sole cause of a 
        practice.''.
            (2) Remedies.--Section 7 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 626) is 
        amended--
                    (A) in subsection (b)--
                            (i) in the first sentence, by striking 
                        ``The'' and inserting ``(1) The'';
                            (ii) in the third sentence, by striking 
                        ``Amounts'' and inserting the following:
    ``(2) Amounts'';
                            (iii) in the fifth sentence, by striking 
                        ``Before'' and inserting the following:
    ``(4) Before''; and
                            (iv) by inserting before paragraph (4), as 
                        designated by clause (iii) of this 
                        subparagraph, the following:
    ``(3) On a claim in which an individual demonstrates that age was a 
motivating factor for any employment practice, under section 4(g)(1), 
and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the 
same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the 
court--
            ``(A) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief 
        (except as provided in subparagraph (B)), and attorney's fees 
        and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the 
        pursuit of a claim under section 4(g)(1); and
            ``(B) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring 
        any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment.''; 
        and
                    (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``Any'' and 
                inserting ``Subject to subsection (b)(3), any''.
            (3) Definitions.--Section 11 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 630) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) The term `demonstrates' means meets the burdens of production 
and persuasion.''.
            (4) Federal employees.--Section 15 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
        633a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Sections 4(g) and 7(b)(3) shall apply to mixed motive claims 
(involving practices described in section 4(g)(1)) under this 
section.''.
    (b) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.--
            (1) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
        consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin 
        in employment practices.--Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act 
        of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by striking subsection 
        (m) and inserting the following:
    ``(m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful 
employment practice is established under this title when the 
complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin or an activity protected by section 704(a) was a 
motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other 
factors also motivated the practice.''.
            (2) Federal employees.--Section 717 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
        2000e-16) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Sections 703(m) and 706(g)(2)(B) shall apply to mixed motive 
cases (involving practices described in section 703(m)) under this 
section.''.
    (c) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.--
            (1) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Americans with 
        Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111) is amended by adding 
        at the end the following:
            ``(11) Demonstrates.--The term `demonstrates' means meets 
        the burdens of production and persuasion.''.
            (2) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
        consideration of disability in employment practices.--Section 
        102 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
    ``(e) Proof.--
            ``(1) Establishment.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
        Act, a discriminatory practice is established under this Act 
        when the complaining party demonstrates that disability or an 
        activity protected by subsection (a) or (b) of section 503 was 
        a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though 
        other factors also motivated the practice.
            ``(2) Demonstration.--In establishing a discriminatory 
        practice under paragraph (1) or by any other method of proof, a 
        complaining party--
                    ``(A) may rely on any type or form of admissible 
                evidence and need only produce evidence sufficient for 
                a reasonable trier of fact to find that a 
                discriminatory practice occurred under this Act; and
                    ``(B) shall not be required to demonstrate that 
                disability or an activity protected by subsection (a) 
                or (b) of section 503 was the sole cause of an 
                employment practice.''.
            (3) Certain antiretaliation claims.--Section 503(c) of such 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 12203(c)) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``The remedies'' and inserting the 
                following:
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        remedies''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Certain antiretaliation claims.--Section 107(c) shall 
        apply to claims under section 102(e)(1) with respect to title 
        I.''.
            (4) Remedies.--Section 107 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Discriminatory Motivating Factor.--On a claim in which an 
individual demonstrates that disability was a motivating factor for any 
employment practice, under section 102(e)(1), and a respondent 
demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in 
the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court--
            ``(1) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief 
        (except as provided in paragraph (2)), and attorney's fees and 
        costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the 
        pursuit of a claim under section 102(e)(1); and
            ``(2) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring 
        any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment.''.
    (d) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--
            (1) In general.--Sections 501(f), 503(d), and 504(d) of the 
        Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(f), 793(d), and 
        794(d)), are each amended by adding after the words ``title I 
        of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 
        et seq.)'' the following: ``, including the standards of 
        causation or methods of proof applied under section 102(e) of 
        that Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(e)),''.
            (2) Federal employees.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        to section 501(f) shall be construed to apply to all employees 
        covered by section 501.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

    This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply to all 
claims pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act This bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to establish an unlawful employment practice when the complaining party demonstrates that age or participation in investigations, proceedings, or litigation under such Act was a motivating factor for any unlawful employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice (thereby allowing what are commonly known as "mixed motive" claims). The bill: (1) permits a complaining party to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence, which need only be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred; and (2) declares that a complaining party shall not be required to demonstrate that age or retaliation was the sole cause of the employment practice (thereby rejecting the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., which requires a complainant to prove that age was the "but-for" cause for the employer's decision). The bill authorizes a court in a claim in which age discrimination is shown to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, but prohibits a court from awarding damages or issuing an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment. The bill applies the same standard of proof to other employment discrimination and retaliation claims, including claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act