Ninth Circuit Permits use of “Burden-Shifting” Test over “But For” Standard in ADEA Case
1 min read
Jan 17, 2012
An Army employee filed suit against the Secretary of the Army and the United States Army Corps of Engineers alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") after he was not interviewed and his applications for two promotions were denied. The lower court relied upon the newer Gross v. FBL Financial standard of determining causation in an ADEA case, and found that the employee could not demonstrate that “but for” his age, he would have been given the position(s).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, found that the lower court erred when it held that Gross applied in lieu of the former and long-standing McDonnell Douglas test for proving age discrimination. Based upon Gross, the employee must establish that but for his age, he would not have been subjected to the adverse employment action. Under McDonnell Douglas, the employee must establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the employment action, and finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to establish that the proffered reason was merely pretext.
The Court, like the First, Second, and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal have found before it, that Gross did not abrogate McDonnell Douglas, but instead, held that an employee could rely upon the long-standing burden-shifting test to defeat summary judgment. When applying that test to the facts at issue, the Court determined that because the employee was able to establish that he was 54 years old at the relevant time, was qualified for the positions, was denied both positions, and the positions were given to substantially younger candidates, he could proceed on his claims at trial.
All employers must make an adverse employment action at one time or another, whether it is termination, demotion, suspension, or simply not choosing someone for a promotion. Employers must exercise caution to ensure that only legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory factors are considered when making such decisions.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Brian McGrath Discusses Far-Reaching Impact of a NY Foreclosure Ruling on Mortgage Industry



