Bill

Bill > S485


US S485

US S485
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act


summary

Introduced
02/14/2019
In Committee
02/14/2019
Crossed Over
Passed
Dead
12/31/2020

Introduced Session

116th Congress

Bill Summary

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. This bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to establish an unlawful employment practice when the complaining party demonstrates that age or participation in investigations, proceedings, or litigation under such Act was a motivating factor for any unlawful employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice (thereby allowing what are commonly known as "mixed motive" claims). The bill (1) permits a complaining party to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence, which need only be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred; and (2) declares that a complaining party shall not be required to demonstrate that age or retaliation was the sole cause of the employment practice (thereby rejecting the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., which required a complainant to prove that age was the "but-for" cause for the employer's decision). The bill authorizes a court in a claim in which age discrimination is shown to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, but prohibits a court from awarding damages or issuing an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment. The bill applies the same standard of proof to other employment discrimination and retaliation claims, including claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

AI Summary

This bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and other civil rights laws to allow "mixed motive" claims, where a protected characteristic (such as age) was a motivating factor for an unlawful employment practice, even if other factors also motivated the practice. The bill rejects the Supreme Court's Gross v. FBL Financial Services decision, which had required the complainant to prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the unlawful practice. The bill also allows complainants to use any admissible evidence to establish their claims and does not require them to show that the protected characteristic was the sole cause. The bill applies these standards to claims under the ADEA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The bill's provisions apply to all pending claims on or after the date of enactment.

Committee Categories

Health and Social Services

Sponsors (4)

Last Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (on 02/14/2019)

bill text


bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...
Loading...