Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
Today we want to talk about Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. is a topic that has sparked the interest of many people in recent times. Its relevance has transcended borders and has become a source of debate and reflection in different spheres of society. Many experts have dedicated time and effort to studying Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., seeking to understand its impact and scope in our daily lives. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., from its origin to its possible future implications. We hope this reading provides a comprehensive view on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and its implications in today's society.
| Gross v. FBL Financial Services | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 31, 2009 Decided June 18, 2009 | |
| Full case name | Jack Gross, Petitioner v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. |
| Docket no. | 08-441 |
| Citations | 557 U.S. 167 (more) 129 S. Ct. 2343; 174 L. Ed. 2d 119 |
| Holding | |
| A plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 | |
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, involving the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Jack Gross, an employee of FBL Financial Services, Inc., was transferred to another position and a former subordinate took on many of Gross' old responsibilities. They both received the same compensation, but Gross believed his reassignment was a demotion. Gross brought suit against FBL in April 2004 in District Court, claiming ADEA violations. The court found in his favor and awarded him $5,000,000 in lost compensation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, finding that a plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.
References
External links
- Text of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) is available from: Cornell Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |