Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Time to Apply the But For Burden of Proof to FCRA Discrimination Claims

In short, a law firm helped a client win a big case by proving that the other company broke their contract. It was a complicated process, but the law firm worked hard and was able to help their client win a lot of money. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Supreme Court made a decision that affects how employees must prove discrimination in the workplace. They said that in order to prove age discrimination, an employee has to show that their age was the main reason for the employer’s action, not just a small part of it. This is a higher standard than what is required for other types of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. This decision will likely impact how age discrimination claims are handled under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The Southern District of Florida ruled in Liles v. Stuart Weitzman, LLC that an employer was not guilty of age discrimination under the ADEA and FCRA because the employee did not prove that his age was the main reason for his termination. The court used the same framework for age discrimination claims under the FCRA as it does for the ADEA. This means that employees must meet the “but for” standard of proof, not the “motivating factor” standard, to establish a discrimination claim under the FCRA. The text of the FCRA is the same as the ADEA in using the phrase “because of,” and there is no mention of the “motivating factor” phrase. This indicates that the “but for” standard should be used for FCRA discrimination claims. The Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) is a law designed to address civil rights violations. In Gallagher v. Manatee County, the court ruled that the FCRA limits the total amount of money a plaintiff can receive for attorney’s fees, costs, and damages. The court also said that the FCRA should be interpreted using its plain and ordinary meaning, and it requires a “but for” standard of proof for discrimination claims. This means that a plaintiff must prove that discrimination was the main reason for their mistreatment. Some lawyers have been filing discrimination claims only under the FCRA in state court, instead of including federal claims as well. However, this strategy might not be the best because the FCRA has the same standard for all types of discrimination claims, while federal laws have different standards. In a 2009 court case called Gross, a law was quoted that says it’s illegal to discriminate against people based on their age. This law is similar to another law that says it’s illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, and other reasons. So, courts use the same rules when deciding cases about age discrimination and other types of discrimination. Another court case called Casper said that the rules for disabilities also apply to age discrimination cases. In another case, Liles, it was mentioned that Florida law also makes it illegal to discriminate. The law says that it is illegal to discriminate against people at work. Some court cases have supported this law. Darren A. Schwartz is a lawyer who helps companies defend themselves in discrimination lawsuits. This information is from the Labor and Employment Law Section.

The Florida Bar wants its members to do their job well and serve the public.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/gross-v-fbl-financial-services-inc-time-to-apply-the-but-for-burden-of-proof-to-fcra-discrimination-claims/