Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to my Republican colleague's amendment mandating a study before the bill can go into effect. This is not an earnest attempt to look into the Supreme Court's impact on age discrimination cases. It is a…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to my Republican colleague's amendment mandating a study before the bill can go into effect.
This is not an earnest attempt to look into the Supreme Court's impact on age discrimination cases. It is a delay tactic and nothing more.
We know that age discrimination happens. In fact, not long ago, we heard compelling witness testimony in the Education and Labor Committee highlighting the need for this very legislation.
Ageism is one of the most common and, sadly, most accepted forms of discrimination in the workplace. Last year, the EEOC received over 14,000 age discrimination complaints, accounting for over 20 percent of all discrimination charges filed in this country.
This is a problem that impacts not just workers but our entire economy, and it particularly harms women and people of color. According to the AARP, nearly two-thirds of women and more than three-quarters of Black workers age 45 and over say they have seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace.
We don't need a study to tell us that a substantially higher burden of proof for some forms of discrimination makes it more difficult for workers who can prove discrimination to get their day in court and to prevail. That is just common sense.
What we need is a return to a mixed-motive standard, which says that any consideration of age, as opposed to ability to perform a job, is impermissible in employment decisions.
We can look at two cases that were proceeding under a mixed-motive standard but were dismissed following the Supreme Court's precedents. Courts dismissed both of these cases on the grounds that the facts, which were sufficient under a mixed-motive standard, were no longer sufficient under the heightened but-for standard.
First, there is the case of Jack Gross, an older gentleman who had been demoted after refusing a buyout when his employer underwent a merger. As he and many older workers were demoted,
his younger colleagues received promotions.
Mr. Gross challenged his demotion under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and won his case at trial under the motivating factor framework. However, after the Supreme Court changed the rules and required him to retry his case under the new and more stringent but-for causation standard, he lost despite the fact that he had proved the same set of facts with the same parties in the same courts as before.
Second, consider the impact of the Nassar case on anti-retaliation claims under the Civil Rights Act. In the case of Shumate v. Selma City Board of Education, an elementary school cafeteria worker alleged that she had been passed over for promotion due to having filed earlier discrimination claims, and that those claims had been discussed by the interview panel.
The district court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on her retaliation claim. However, the Nassar decision was issued a few months later and the employer moved for reconsideration under the new causation standard. This time, the district court dismissed the worker's retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to the employer, stating that, ``the Supreme Court has changed the rules since then.''
Same facts. Same case. Different causation standard, and a win was turned into a loss.
The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act reinstates the legal standard for proving age discrimination and aligns it with the existing standard for proving discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin.
Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for discrimination of any kind in the workplace, and there is no reason to delay this legislation any further. We have already had a 12-year delay in restoring justice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Allen amendment and support the underlying bill.