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

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

