Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

Gross v. FBL Financial Services
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 31, 2009 Decided June 18, 2009
Full case name	Jack Gross, Petitioner v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
Docket no.	08-441
Citations	557 U.S. 167 ( more ) 129 S. Ct. 2343; 174 L. Ed. 2d 119
Holding
A plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito
Dissent	Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Breyer, joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Laws applied
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009. It involved the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). ^[1]

Case history

Jack Gross, an employee of FBL Financial Services, Inc., was transferred to another position while a former subordinate took on many of Gross' old responsibilities. They both received the same compensation, but Gross believed his reassignment was a demotion. Gross brought suit against FBL in April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, claiming ADEA violations. The District Court found in his favor and awarded him $46,945 in lost compensation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision. ^[2]

Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal, finding that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action. ^[3]

The Court interpreted the wording in the ADEA , "because of", to mean that the Act required the plaintiff employee to prove that age was the reason that resulted in the adverse employment action. Therefore, a standard higher than "motivating factor" would be required. ^[4]

References

1. "Keep Young and Beautiful—Especially At Work". The Daily Beast. March 16, 2010. Archived from the original on September 14, 2011.
2. "Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 16, 2025.
3. "GROSS v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. - Syllabus". law.cornell.edu.
4. Schwartz, Darren A. "Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.: Time to Apply the "But For" Burden of Proof to FCRA Discrimination Claims". The Florida Bar. Retrieved November 16, 2025.

External links

• Text of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167(2009) is available from: Cornell Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)