There is hope coming for fairer standards required for employee plaintiffs in age discrimination cases filed under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). On December 4, 2023, Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" (D-VA-30) introduced HR-658, a bill seeking to amend the ADEA to require that federal employees and others plaintiffs alleging age discrimination under the ADEA must only prove that age was among the reasons that their employer discriminated against them by taking an adverse action against them. If this bill called the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act becomes law, it would make it easier for an employee to prevail in an age discrimination claim, by in essence overturning a 2009 US Supreme Court decision that requires employees to prove that the employer would not have taken the action except for the employer’s illegal discriminatory reasons, also known as the “but-for” causation standard.
A loosening of the standard from the more stringent US Supreme Court’s “but-for” causation standard, to a standard where a plaintiff must only prove that age was among one of the reasons that their employer took an adverse action against them, will strengthen anti-discrimination protections for older workers. If you are an older worker in New Jersey, who is discriminated against in employment because of your age, you do not have to file under the ADEA. New Jersey age discrimination plaintiffs can file under the NJ state statute, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, in State Court. Studies have shown that employment discrimination plaintiffs fare better in State Court, than in Federal Court.
The Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) severely weakened protections against age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Under Gross, the US Supreme Court held that plaintiffs seeking to prove age employment discrimination are required to demonstrate that age was the employer’s decisive motivating factor for the its adverse action against the older employee.
Under the Gross 2009 decision, Plaintiffs filing age discrimination claims under the ADEA, encounter tough obstacles in the proof required to win their cases because workers who experience age discrimination have to meet a higher burden of proof than workers claiming discrimination based on other legally protected characteristics such as race, national origin or religion.
The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act would return the legal standard for age discrimination claims to the pre 2009 US Supreme Court’s evidentiary threshold as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Gross. This Act would align an employment age discrimination plaintiff’s burden of proof with the same standards for proving discrimination based on based on race and national origin. If it passes both Houses of Congress, President Joseph Biden has indicated he will sign this Act into law. This Act, if signed into law, would restore the legal rights of older workers by ensuring that the burdens of proof in age discrimination claims are treated in the same manner as other discrimination claims.
Age discrimination is THE growing red-hot legal button, expanding yearly, and it’s not going away.
If you are an older worker who is being pushed out of your job or discriminated against because of your age, you should contact this office today for a free consultation. I have represented numerous older employees for private and public employers and was successful in recovering financial compensation for their emotional pain and suffering and moneys for lost wages, both for past lost wages and projected future lost wages.
Age discrimination is THE growing red hot legal button motivating corporations to devise spurious reasons to discredit their employees who allege age discrimination. Employers seeking to avoid higher insurance costs purport bogus excuses for their adverse actions. They may push older workers out the door by harassing them or giving them undeserved poor performance evaluations in hopes of pressuring the older workers into voluntarily resigning. People are living longer and financially need to remain gainfully employed beyond the age of 65; working is not a lifestyle choice - it’s a life necessity.
If You Resign, You May Lose Right to Prevail in a Lawsuit
In many instances of discrimination and retaliation, if you resign, you may lose right to prevail in a lawsuit unless you first take certain legally required measures to preserve your job while you are still employed. If you are thinking of resigning, or think you will be fired, or have been fired, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation to discuss your options in the safest way for you.
If you are being subjected to such unlawful workplace age discrimination or believe you are being pushed out of your job, or have been terminated, contact Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law today for a free consultation. I accept discrimination and whistleblower cases from all over New Jersey and have locations in Southern, Central and Northern NJ to meet with clients.
Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law represents workers throughout the entire state, including Hackensack, Jersey City, Newark, Irvington, Orange, East Orange, Trenton, Paterson, Montclair, Elizabeth, North Brunswick, Cherry Hill, Vineland, Union, Plainfield, Hamilton Township, Lakewood, Edison, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Franklin, Lakewood, and every NJ County, including Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Monmouth, Somerset, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, Morris, Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington, Camden Counties.