Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
557 U.S. 167 (2009)
- Written by Nan Futrell, JD
Facts
Jack Gross (plaintiff) was reassigned to a different job position by his employer, FBL Financial Services, Inc. (FBL) (defendant). Gross sued FBL under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 alleging that FBL’s decision to demote him was partly motivated by his age. FBL contended that Gross’s reassignment was due to company restructuring and that Gross’s skill set better fit the new position. Following a jury trial, the district court instructed the jury that it should find in Gross’s favor if he showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his age was a motivating factor in FBL’s decision to reassign him. The district court instructed the jury that it should find in FBL’s favor if FBL proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have made the same decision absent any consideration of Gross’s age. The jury found in Gross’s favor and awarded him damages. On appeal, FBL challenged the mixed-motives jury instructions. Gross acknowledged he had not offered direct evidence of age discrimination, and the court of appeals held that the district court should not have given the mixed-motives jury instructions. Gross sought United States Supreme Court review by a petition for writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
