| 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 $46,945 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.