Senate Committee Will Examine Pro-Employer Supreme Court Decisions

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced on Tuesday that his committee will hold a hearing to examine two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that benefit employers. The hearing, “Workplace Fairness: Has the Supreme Court Been Misinterpreting Laws Designed to Protect American Workers from Discrimination,” will undertake a review of the Court’s 2001 decision in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, which extended the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to cover employment contracts, and thus sanctioned certain mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, and the more recent opinion in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (pdf), which toughened an employee’s burden of proof in bringing a mixed-motive discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 

Among the witnesses scheduled to testify at the October 7 hearing is the plaintiff in Gross v. FBL Financials Services, Inc. The Court in this case held that a plaintiff bringing an ADEA claim must show by a preponderance of the evidence that age was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse employment decision. Unlike in Title VII discrimination cases, an employer does not need to prove that it would have made the same decision regardless of age, even if the employee were to produce some evidence that age may have been a contributing factor in the decision. In July, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, criticized this decision and also called for a committee hearing to examine its repercussions. Both Miller and Leahy have likened Gross to Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a pay discrimination case that was subsequently overruled by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed into law earlier this year. Following next week’s hearing, it is possible that legislation to overturn the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gross will be introduced. Bills aimed at invalidating mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements validated by the Circuit City decision have already been introduced this session, but have thus far received little attention.