The bills are partly in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on an age discrimination case in 2009 . The Supreme Court ruled in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that for employees to prevail in a disparate treatment age discrimination case, they must prove that age bias was the ultimate reason the employer took the adverse employment action (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (June 18, 2009)).

As a result, it is now more difficult for employees to prevail in age discrimination lawsuits. Employees must be able to prove not only that age motivated the employer's adverse action but also that intentional age discrimination was the only reason for the action.

Proponents of the bills claim that clarifying the standards of proof needed in age discrimination cases would help workers in age discrimination lawsuits. Under the proposed bills, employees would still have to prove that age was motivating factor, but not that it was the only factor. The bills also specify the types of evidence that an employee may use in court, as well as the types relief and damages available.

In addition, the language of the bills goes beyond the ADEA to include “other anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws,” which could mean a broader impact if H.R. 3721 or S.1756 were passed.

Sources: