Legal Document

129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009) Jack GROSS, Petitioner, v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. No. 08-441. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 31, 2009. Decided June 18, *2346 Eric Schnapper, Seattle, WA, for petitioner. Lisa Blatt, Washington, DC, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting the Carter G. Phillips, respondent. Beth A. Townsend, Townsend Law Office, West Des Moines, IA, Michael J. Carroll, Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Counsel Record, School Law, University Sidley Austin LLP, D.C., Frank Harty, Debra L. Hulett, Jordan B. Hansell, Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell O'Brien, Iowa, Respondent. Justice THOMAS delivered opinion Court. The question presented petitioner in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence age discrimination order to obtain mixed-motives jury instruction suit brought under Age Discrimination Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Because we hold that such never proper an ADEA case, vacate decision below. I Petitioner Gross began working respondent Financial Group, Inc. (FBL), 1971. As 2001, held position claims administration director. But 2003, when he was 54 years old, reassigned project coordinator. At same time, transferred many Gross' job responsibilities newly created  manager. That given Kneeskern, *2347 who had previously been supervised and then her early forties. App. Pet. Cert. 23a (District opinion). Although (in his new position) Kneeskern received compensation, considered reassignment demotion because FBL's reallocation former Kneeskern. In April 2004, filed District alleging coordinator violated ADEA, which makes it unlawful employer take adverse action against employee "because individual's age." 623(a). proceeded trial, where introduced suggesting based at least part on age. defended its grounds corporate restructuring better suited skills. See close over objections, instructed return verdict if proved, preponderance evidence, "demoted [him] projec[t] coordinator" "age motivating factor" demote him. 9-10. further would qualify "`motivating factor,' [it] played or role [FBL]'s [him]." Id., 10. also regarding burden proof. According "verdict be [FBL] ... has proved have demoted [Gross] regardless Ibid. returned Gross, awarding him $46,945 lost compensation. 8. challenged instructions appeal. Appeals Eighth Circuit reversed remanded holding incorrectly standard established Price Waterhouse Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 1775, 104 Ed. 2d 268 (1989). 526 F.3d 356, 358 (2008). Waterhouse, addressed allocation persuasion cases Title VII Civil Rights 1964, 78 253, 42 2000e seq., alleges suffered employment both permissible impermissible considerations i.e., "mixed-motives" case. U.S., 232, 244-247, 1775 (plurality splintered. Four Justices joined plurality opinion, see id., 231-258, White O'Connor separately concurred judgment, 258-261, (opinion White, J.); 261-279, O'Connor, J.), three dissented, 279-295, KENNEDY, J.). Six ultimately agreed shows "motivating" "`substantial'" factor employer's action, should shift show taken consideration. 258, opinion); 259-260, 276, found employer, "direct illegitimate criterion substantial [employment] decision." 1775. *2348 accordance with precedent, identified O'Connor's controlling. F.3d, 359 (citing Erickson Farmland Industries, Inc., 271 718, 724 (C.A.8 2001)). Applying standard, needed "[d]irect sufficient support finding reasonable fact finder actually motivated action." (internal quotation marks omitted). Appeals' view, evidence" only "show[s] specific link between alleged discriminatory animus Only upon presentation held, "`to convince trier more likely than not absent consideration factor.'" (quoting supra, J.)). thus concluded Court's were flawed they allowed any category showing just related 360. conceded discrimination, instruction. Rather, applicable typical, non-mixed-motives claims; determine carried "prov[ing] determining ibid. We granted certiorari, 555 ___, 680, 172 649 (2008), now Appeals. II parties asked us decide "present mixed-motive non-Title case." i. Before reaching question, however, first ever shifts party defending claim ADEA.[1] does not. A relies decisions construing interpretation ADEA. materially different respect relevant persuasion, these do control our construction *2349 two concurring judgment determined once "plaintiff proves [the plaintiff's membership protected class] decision, defendant may avoid liability proving made even [that factor] into account." 1775; explained Desert Palace, Costa, 539 90, 94-95, 123 2148, 156 84 (2003), Congress since amended explicitly authorizing improper "a decision. 2000e-2(m) (providing "an practice complaining demonstrates race, color, religion, sex, national origin practice, though other factors practice" (emphasis added)); 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (restricting remedies available plaintiffs violations 2000e-2(m)). This burden-shifting framework applies claims. And, decline so now. When conducting statutory interpretation, "must careful apply rules one statute without critical examination." Federal Express Corp. Holowecki, 552 128 1147, 1153, 170 10 Unlike VII, ADEA's text provide establish simply factor. Moreover, neglected add provision §§ 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), contemporaneously several ways, 1991, 115, 105 1079; 302, 1088. cannot ignore Congress' amend VII's provisions but make similar changes amends another, presumed acted intentionally. EEOC Arabian American Oil Co., 499 244, 256, 111 1227, 113 274 (1991). Furthermore, explained, "negative implications raised disparate are strongest" "considered simultaneously language raising implication inserted." Lindh Murphy, 521 320, 330, 117 2059, 138 481 (1997). result, governed Palace Waterhouse.[2] *2350 B Our inquiry therefore focus authorizes claim. It "Statutory begin employed assumption ordinary meaning accurately expresses legislative purpose." Engine Mfrs. Assn. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 541 246, 252, 124 1756, 158 529 (2004) provides, part, "[i]t shall fail refuse hire discharge individual otherwise discriminate terms, conditions, privileges employment, 623(a)(1) added). words of" mean "by reason of: account of." 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1966); Oxford English 746 (1933) (defining "By of, (italics original)); Random House Language 132 (1966) "because" reason; account"). Thus, requirement took "reason" decided act. Hazen Paper Co. Biggins, 507 604, 610, 1701, 338 (1993) (explaining "cannot succeed unless employee's trait decisionmaking] process determinative influence outcome" added)). To disparate-treatment plain therefore, prove "but-for" cause Bridge Phoenix Bond Indemnity 553 2131, 2141-2142, 1012 (2008) (recognizing phrase, of," requires "but for" causation omitted)); Safeco Ins. America Burr, 551 47, 63-64, n. 14, 127 2201, 167 1045 (2007) (observing "[i]n common talk, phrase `based on' indicates but-for causal relationship necessary logical condition" "based on," cf. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Owen, Prosser Keeton Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984) ("An act omission regarded event particular occurred it").[3] *2351 follows, then, 623(a)(1), retains action. Indeed, allocated manner cases. Kentucky Retirement Systems EEOC, 554 ___-___, 2361, 2363-2366, 2369-2371, 171 322 (2008); Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 133, 141, 143, 120 2097, 147 (2000). And nothing statute's carved out exception rule subset Where "silent persuasion," "begin default bear risk failing their claims." Schaffer Weast, 546 49, 56, 126 528, 163 387 (2005); Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 2395, 2400-2401, 283 ("Absent some believe intended otherwise, will conclude lies usually falls, seeking relief" omitted)). no warrant depart from general setting. Hence, (which circumstantial), Reeves, 141-143, 147, 2097.[4] III Finally, reject petitioner's contention controlled initially shifted claims.[5] event, far *2352 clear approach consider today instance. Cf. 14 Penn Plaza LLC Pyett, 556 1456, 1472, 173 398 (declining "introduc[e] qualification text"); Meacham, S.Ct., 2406 "read way wrote it"). Whatever deficiencies retrospect, become evident difficult apply. For example, tried jury, courts particularly craft explain framework. See, e.g., Tyler Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1179 (C.A.2 1992) (referring "the murky water shifting burdens cases"); Visser Packer Engineering Associates, 924 655, 661 (C.A.7 1991) (en banc) (Flaum, J., dissenting) ("The difficulty judges formulating [burden-shifting] jurors applying them can seen verdicts supplanted judgments notwithstanding appeal frequently generally"). doctrinally sound, problems associated application eliminated perceivable benefit extending Continental T. V., GTE Sylvania 433 36, 97 2549, 53 568 (1977) (reevaluating precedent subject criticism "continuing controversy confusion"); Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 839-844, 2597, 115 720 (1991) (SOUTER, concurring).[6] IV bringing pursuant prove, age, produced Accordingly, remand proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS, whom SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER join, dissenting. *2353 most natural reading prohibits actions whole employee. endorsed advanced KENNEDY's dissenting 279, (1989), identical 2000e-2(a)(1). Not did too 1991. Given unambiguous history, inappropriate own initiative, adopt differs VII. disagree statute, engage unnecessary lawmaking. answer certiorari petition need asks appropriate acknowledges, decide.[1] Instead, arose time respondent's brief, "overrule ADEA." Brief Respondent 26 (boldface type deleted). usual course, entertain request merits brief: "`We normally expect notice intent far-reaching argument opposition Rule 15.2, thereby assuring adequate preparation those affected wishing participate.'" Alabama Shelton, 535 654, 660, 3, 122 1764, 152 888 (2002) Central Bell Telephone Alabama, 160, 171, 119 1180, 143 258 (1999)). Yet unconcerned chooses briefed interested amici curiae. Its failure views States, represents agency charged administering especially irresponsible.[2] Unfortunately, majority's inattention prudential practices matched utter disregard intent. provides employer... recognized construed 2000e-2(a)(1) (making "to *2354 origin" added)), proscribes "`because of' individual's... sex gender irrelevant decisions." 240, 260, (White, judgment). violation decision.[3] affirmative defense: could account. 244-245, defense alter clear, considers legitimate making `because sex." 241, readily rejected dissent's contrary assertion. "To construe colloquial shorthand `but-for' causation," said, "is misunderstand them." opinion).[4] Today, interprets "as causation." rather justify departure precedent. statutes identical, long interpretations "with equal force context substantive `were derived haec verba VII.'" Trans World Airlines, Thurston, 469 111, 121, 613, 83 523 (1985) Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 584, 98 866, 55 40 (1978)). generally Northcross Board Memphis City Schools, 412 427, 428, 93 37 48 (1973) (per curiam). reason, dissent assumed plurality's extended 292, Courts *2355 issue unanimously applied Waterhouseto nonetheless suggests inconsistent precedents. particular, statement (1993), "[a disparate-treatment] `cannot outcome.'" Ante, 2350. italicized best inconclusive language, passages demonstrate. stated, instance, "requires age," 612, 1701 added), noted "[w]hen wholly there violation, 611 altered). So too, indicated "possibility dual ERISA fire pension status," classic scenario. (2000), majority relies, conclusion interpreted consistently cases, followed standards set forth including McDonnell Douglas Green, 411 792, 1817, 36 668 (1973), Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 101 1089, 67 207 (1981). 2097; 1701. means indicates, reasons, follow standards. underscores understood conform bolstered reaction 1991 Act. response number recent sharply cut back scope effectiveness [civil rights] laws," H.R.Rep. 102-40, pt. 2, p. 2 (1991), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 694 (hereinafter H.R. Rep.), furnished employers provided instead same-decision limit remedies. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). Importantly, ratified Waterhouse's proof, rejecting suggestion standard. *2356 ("[A]n practice"). claims, reasonably declines ADEA.[6] proceeds compelled Act: remains governing law Smith Jackson, 544 125 1536, 161 410 (2005), precisely point, effect disparate-impact corresponding Noting amendments expanded coverage VII[but] speak discrimination," "Wards Cove's pre-1991 1536 (discussing Wards Cove Packing Atonio, 642, 2115, 733 (1989)); 2405-2406, If flatly repudiated continues substantially surely applies. Curiously, reaches opposite conclusion, relying partial ratification argue case's precedential value. reasons likewise effectively codified amendments. 2348-2349. follow. contrary, (even liability) all adhere decision's motivating-factor test. emphasized passing test original enacting Rep., 17 ("When prohibit invidious decisions"); (stating "reaffirm[ed] reliance prejudice illegal"); 1, 45; S.Rep. 101-315, pp. 6, 22 (1990). unworkable. 2351-2352. *2357 vast antidiscrimination lawsuits concerns about moment. Were truly worried difficulties faced trial juries, moreover, reach today's complicate every raises resurrection unwarranted. 20 ago, militates crabbed adopts today. elected up plainly yes. address decide, following unanimous (2003). accordingly source direct-evidence debate Waterhouse. Writing herself, argued required introduce before 1775.[7] Many treated controlling light Marks 430 188, 193, 990, 51 260 (1977), fragmented decides single rationale explaining result enjoys assent five Justices, `the viewed Members narrowest grounds.'" addressed, garnered votes rationale: test, 2354, 3; disagreed submit motivation. Taking demand objective express view credible testimony suffice. 261, fifth vote "rationale result" Marks, concurrence properly controlling, he, like plurality, require introduction evidence. Any questions settled meet *2358 2000e-2(m), reasoned mention, much less require, heightened through "Congress unequivocal imposing proof requirements." 99, 2148. silence meant "we `[c]onventional rul[e] civil litigation... [that] evidence', using `direct circumstantial evidence.'" opinion), Postal Service Bd. Governors Aikens, 460 711, 103 1478, 75 403 (1983)). acknowledgment utility analysis ante, 2351-2352, 4. imposes requirement, specifically 2097 (cited 99-100, 2148). award liquidated damages "willful" motivation 615, similarly imposition evidentiary Swierkiewicz Sorema N. A., 534 506, 992, (2002); Consolidated Coin Caterers 517 308, 116 1307, 134 (1996). confirms Waterhouse: An endorsement unwise law. resurrects unabashed display judicial respectfully dissent. BREYER, SOUTER GINSBURG agree STEVENS context. join rejects ground why so. inherently causation, read showing. thing typical tort causation. context, scientific commonsense theories physical concept comparatively easy understand relatively entirely matter relation consider, forces, mind-related characterizations constitute motive. Sometimes discovering motives, often *2359 ascribe after thoughts circumstances characterize having multiple say, old wore loud clothing, hypothetical what happened different. obvious, and, knows thinking stronger answer. All know certain forbidden motive play justifies use word "because," dismissed (and things). 239-242, (1989) wrong concluding statute. automatically assess circumstances. regardless. permits defense, motive, actual anyway circumstance age-related absent. sense how situation. 242, 2356 (STEVENS, (describing framework). unfair impractical allocating way. gave seems lawful. says, pertinent part: "Your elements evidence: . "[The] defendant's plaintiff. "However, your "As used instructions, `a However, plaintiff." well NOTES [1] frame include threshold inquiry, "[t]he deemed comprise subsidiary fairly included therein." 14.1; Sherrill Oneida Indian Nation Y., 197, 214, 8, 386 (2005) ("`Questions mentioned essential below correct disposition issues comprised presented'" Stern, E. Gressman, Shapiro, K. Geller, Practice 414 (8th ed.2002))); Ballard Commissioner, 40, 46-47, 1270, 227 (evaluating anterior" "questions raised"). [2] argues incorporate past VII," post, 2354 (dissenting opinion) omitted), 2354-2356. interpreting uniform. General Dynamics Land Systems, Cline, 540 581, 1236, 157 1094 (2004), declined interpret age" 623(a) bar people ages, of... race [or] sex" races sexes, 592, 5, 1236. definitively utilized 142, (2000); 311, textual differences prevent federal [3] contends "nothing impractical" hinging "forbidden play[ed] Post, 2359 make. Florida Revenue Piccadilly Cafeterias, 2326, 2338-2339, 203 allow "was practice," give choice. (2009). [4] retain direct, circumstantial, There satisfy 623(a), imply none. requirements" contexts, subsections within 29, fit. (2003); also, 25 2504(b)(2)(B) (imposing "clear convincing standard); 722(a)(2)(A) (same). [5] reasoning (2005). 2356. Smith, despite amendment adding 1536. legislation, added "motivating undermine STEVENS' argument. 2348-2349, partially abrogated eliminating complete already addition alone sufficient. tailoring absence parallel transfer [6] points contexts 54-55 (citing, inter alia, NLRB Transportation 462 393, 401-403, 2469, 76 667 (1983) (claims National Labor Relations (NLRA)); Mt. Healthy Doyle, 429 274, 287, 568, 50 471 (constitutional claims)). These contra position. involving NLRA instance deferred Relation Board's determination appropriate. NLRB, 400-403, 2469. constitutional bearing text. "The [ADEA]." 2346. curiae brief presented. oral argument, Government urged takes Tr. Oral Arg. 20-21, 28-29. stated "substantial" factor, while term interchangeable, evidenced White's (1977): "`[T]he placed criterion] "substantial or, put words, factor"'" 259, added); 249, (using interchangeably). doubt aware dictionaries define "on Contrary bald assertion, denotes cites not, "solely "exclusively "commanded words" Febres Challenger Caribbean 214 57 (C.A.1 2000); Ostrowski Atlantic Mut. Cos., 968 1992); Starceski Westinghouse Elec. 1089 (C.A.3 1995); Warfield-Rohr Casket 364 160 (C.A.4 2004); Rachid Box, 376 305 (C.A.5 Wexler Fine Furniture, 317 564 (C.A.6 2003); Eng. Assocs., 655 banc); Hutson 63 771 Lewis YMCA, 208 1303 (C.A.11 2000) curiam); Gonzagowski Widnall, 744, 749 (C.A.10 1997). is, well. 4 (noting "number laws banning 621, modeled "these [should] Act," provisions). [7] While she evidence," contrasted might definition affect my

Classification Label: 1