NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday ordered a new trial in a case that led the U.S. Supreme Court in June to make it harder for workers to win age discrimination lawsuits.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said FBL Financial Group Inc, an insurance and financial services company, deserves a new trial on an age bias claim by Jack Gross, a former claims administration director.
Gross contended that the West Des Moines, Iowa-based company reassigned some of his duties in 2003, and that the demotion was in part because of his age, 54, at the time. A jury awarded him $46,945 for lost compensation.
But the Eighth Circuit on Monday said the case must be retried after a jury instruction wrongly shifted to FBL the burden of showing that age was not the determining factor in the demotion. "The error cannot be harmless," it wrote.
The Supreme Court, in a decision controlled by conservative justices, voted 5-4 on June 18 that a worker alleging age discrimination must show that bias was the cause of a challenged employment action, not just one of several factors.
That means workers must meet a tougher standard under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act than when they sue for racial or gender bias under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"Unlike Title VII, the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. "The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision."
An FBL spokeswoman had no immediate comment on Monday's decision. A lawyer for Gross did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Eighth Circuit comprises Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.
The case is Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Nos. 07-1490 and 07-1492.
(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
Recent tweets about Business