← All Authorities
United States Leading Case uncategorised

Gross v FBL Financial Services Inc

557 U.S. 167 (2009)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2009
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Under the ADEA, a plaintiff must prove age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action; mixed-motive liability is unavailable.

Key Principle

Under the ADEA, a plaintiff must prove that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action; mixed-motive instructions are not available.

Area of Law

employment

Related Cases

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 165

Employee/independent contractor characterisation is determined by the legal rights and obligations in the written contract, not the totality of the relationship.

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 275 CLR 215

HCA confirmed that employee/contractor distinction is determined by contractual terms alone, rejecting the multi-factorial totality-of-relationship test.

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 271 CLR 456

A casual employee's status is determined by the contractual terms at engagement; regularity of work pattern does not transform casual employment into permanent employment.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Gross v FBL Financial Services Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Gross v FBL Financial Services...