AND · 29usc623:age-causation
Gross, 557 U.S. 167 (2009), governs §623(a)(1). A motivating-factor showing alone does not shift persuasion to the employer. Direct and circumstantial proof are available; McDonnell Douglas is a proof framework, not the statute or an inflexible universal pleading checklist.
Exact element source
because of such individual's age;Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [293:326] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — not | |
| pretext/grandbabies-remark-and-younger-replacement | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| pretext/inadequate-qualification-comparison | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/931/0786-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not | |
| reduction-in-force/retirement-reference-without-decision-link | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/934/0447-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/911/0450-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court affirms summary judgment on the actual ADEA treatment claim. Separate new material was forfeited, and the court also discusses it alternatively; that does not turn this case into a rule-only decision. | hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons | CUNA Mutual articulated several legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for preferring Logemann: (1) he had customer-service experience (Wrolstad did not); (2) he showed great enthusiasm for the position; and (3) he was willing to work for a salary within the range established for the job (Wrolstad was not).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15302:15608] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15609:15665] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15666:15760] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc. |
| /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved The Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's proved but-for inference from the full evidentiary record, not from the isolated remark alone. | pretext/grandbabies-remark-and-younger-replacement | After delivering the firing decision to Westmoreland, Carroway gathered Westmoreland's belongings and escorted her out of the building. While walking to Westmoreland's car, Carroway stated, "Oh, girl, you don't have nothing to worry about. You'll get another job. Just go home and take care of those grandbabies." TWC chose one of Westmoreland's subordinates, a 37-year-old, to replace her. The company did not take any disciplinary action against Sherrill, who was then 43 years of age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [6333:6820] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.Taken as a whole, this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that TWC's justification was pretextual and that the company fired Westmoreland to make room for a younger worker.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [12847:13043] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3. |
| /f3d/931/0786-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court applies the ADEA but-for requirement and finds insufficient pretext evidence. This annotation is the ADEA component; Title VII/state-law components are not treated as identical legal standards. | pretext/inadequate-qualification-comparison | But there is evidence of awkward interviews and some unsavvy conduct, which is at least an arguable basis for Nationwide's purported motives.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29089:29230] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446.She needed to use the qualifications comparison evidence to prove pretext, and she did not introduce enough evidence to meet her burden in that way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29231:29379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446.Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment that Heisler failed to meet her burden of production to show pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29380:29502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446. |
| /f3d/934/0447-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The employer’s reduction in force does not automatically defeat an age claim. The selected evidence addresses the remark’s context and lack of connection to the decisionmaker. | reduction-in-force/retirement-reference-without-decision-link | Between 2014 and 2018, the defendants, Transocean Offshore Deepwater et al., reduced their offshore fleet by 59%.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [30:143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908.And no other evidence shows, or even suggests, that Owen had any influence over the decision to terminate McMichael.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [20860:20976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908.Because we agree that McMichael failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, we AFFIRM.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [893:985] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
An employee who alleges that her employer violated this prohibition "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In other words, an employee cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim by showing that age was one of multiple motives for an employer's decision; the employee must prove that the employer would not have fired her in the absence of age discrimination. Id. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343.
/f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
An employee who alleges that her employer violated this prohibition "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In other words, an employee cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim by showing that age was one of multiple motives for an employer's decision; the employee must prove that the employer would not have fired her in the absence of age discrimination. Id. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [8471:9075] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.Gross, 557 U.S. 167 (2009), governs §623(a)(1). A motivating-factor showing alone does not shift persuasion to the employer. Direct and circumstantial proof are available; McDonnell Douglas is a proof framework, not the statute or an inflexible universal pleading checklist.