[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S6103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
``PROTECTING OLDER WORKERS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ACT''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Harkin and
Grassley in reintroducing the Protecting Older Workers Against
Discrimination Act. This bipartisan bill seeks to restore crucial
worker protections that were cast aside by five justices of the Supreme
Court in the 2009 case Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc. The bill reaffirms
the contributions made by older Americans in the workforce and ensures
that employees will be evaluated based on their performance and not by
arbitrary criteria such as age.
Congress has long worked to enact civil rights laws to eliminate
discrimination in the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, extending protections against
workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened and codified
these protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which passed the
Senate with an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 93-5. These statutes
established not only our clear congressional intent, but also a clear
legal standard: an employer's decision to fire or demote an employee
may not be motivated in whole or in part by the employee's age.
However, the Supreme Court's Gross decision unilaterally erased that
longstanding standard. A narrow 5-4 majority threw out a jury verdict
in favor of Jack Gross, a 32-year employee of a major financial
company, who had sued his employer under the ADEA. That jury concluded
that age was a motivating factor in the company's decision to demote
Mr. Gross and to reassign a younger, significantly less-qualified
worker to take his place. But the Supreme Court ignored the fact
finder, its own precedent, and congressional intent to overturn the
jury verdict.
Five justices shifted the burden from the discriminators to the
discriminated, deciding that workers like Mr. Gross must now prove that
age was the only motivating factor in a demotion or termination. The
court's decision required workers to essentially introduce a ``smoking
gun'' in order to prove discrimination. By imposing such high
standards, the Court sided with big business and made it easier for
employers to discriminate on the basis of age as long as they could
cloak it with another reason. The Protecting Older Workers Against
Discrimination Act rejects the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Gross
decision, not only in those cases under the ADEA but also under similar
civil rights provisions.
The Supreme Court's holding has created uncertainty in our civil
rights laws, making it incumbent on Congress to clarify our intent and
the statutory protections that all hardworking Americans deserve. The
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores the
original intent of the ADEA and three other Federal anti-discrimination
statutes. The bill reestablishes Congress' intent that age
discrimination is unlawful even if it is only part of the reason to
demote or terminate a worker. It makes it clear that employers cannot
get away with age discrimination by simply coming up with a reason to
terminate an employee that sounds less controversial. Under the bill, a
worker would also be able to introduce any relevant admissible form of
evidence to show discrimination, whether the evidence is direct or
circumstantial.
I commend Senator Harkin for his efforts over the past 4 years to
negotiate a bipartisan bill to restore the civil rights protections
that all Americans deserve in the workplace. I also thank Senator
Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for his
commitment to this issue. I once again urge my fellow Senators to join
this bipartisan effort and show their commitment to ending age
discrimination in the workplace.
____________________