I 
116TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1230 
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 
FEBRUARY 14, 2019 
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. BONAMICI, 
Mr. KATKO, Mr. HURD of Texas, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. TAKANO, and Mr. 
GROTHMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor 
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 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 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 those who dis-
criminate 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 ap-
proved 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 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 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 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 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(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 employ-
ment 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 IMPER-
MISSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF AGE IN EMPLOYMENT 
PRACTICES.—Section 4 of the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) is amend-
ed 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 meth-
od of proof, a complaining party— 
‘‘(A) may rely on any type or form of admis-
sible evidence and need only produce evidence suffi-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
cient 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 sub-
paragraph, the following: 
‘‘(3) On a claim in which an individual demonstrates 
that age was a motivating factor for any employment prac-
tice, 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— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
‘‘(A) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive re-
lief (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 sec-
tion 4(g)(1); and 
‘‘(B) shall not award damages or issue an order 
requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, pro-
motion, 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 bur-
dens 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.— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(1) CLARIFYING PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPER-
MISSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF RACE, COLOR, RELI-
GION, 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 pro-
tected by section 704(a) was a motivating factor for any 
employment practice, even though other factors also moti-
vated the practice.’’. 
(2) FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.—Section 717 of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16) is amended by add-
ing at the end the following: 
‘‘(g) Sections 703(m) and 706(g)(2)(B) shall apply 
to mixed motive cases (involving practices described in sec-
tion 703(m)) under this section.’’. 
(c) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.— 
(1) DEFINITIONS.—Section 101 of the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
12111) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:56 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1230.IH
H1230
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS