Reference no: EM132927749

How is Age Discrimination Provenmore likely than not Class, as with any kind of employment discrimination, it may be difficult for a spurned employee or would-be employee to prove that discrimination actually took place, and that it was based on age. The plaintiff in such cases must prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that age was the "but-for cause" of the employer's action (such as a demotion or firing). "Preponderance of the evidence" means that the employee must show that the evidence makes it that age was the "but-for cause." "But-for cause" means that the employer would not have done what he or she did "but for" the employee's age (in other words, without it, the discrimination would not have happened).

The standard of evidence used in age discrimination cases was less stringent until last year, when the Supreme Court decided in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that the standard of proof should be higher for the plaintiff. In that case, an employee in his early 50s was demoted by his employer of 17 years and replaced by another employee in her early 40s. The Court ruled that the suing employee had to show that age was the deciding factor.

Have you seen age discrimination in the workplace?