I 
115TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 2650 
To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other 
laws to clarify appropriate standards for Federal employment discrimina-
tion and retaliation claims, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MAY 25, 2017 
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. TAKANO, and 
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
A BILL 
To amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate standards 
for Federal employment discrimination and retaliation 
claims, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
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: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:33 Jun 03, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2650.IH
H2650
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
(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 under-
standing that unlawful discrimination is often dif-
ficult 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 un-
lawful 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 Serv-
ices, 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 in-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:33 Jun 03, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2650.IH
H2650
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
stead 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 com-
plaining party need not prove that a protected char-
acteristic 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 ad-
missible evidence to establish their claims of an 
unlawful employment practice; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:33 Jun 03, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2650.IH
H2650
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS