Sec. 2. Findings and purposes

406 words·~2 min read·/bill/115/s/443/is/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: In enacting section 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (adding section 703(m) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), Congress reaffirmed its understanding that unlawful discrimination is often difficult to detect and prove because discriminators do not usually admit their discrimination and often try to conceal their true motives. Section 703(m) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly approved so-called mixed motive claims, providing that an unlawful employment practice is established when a protected characteristic was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.

Congress enacted amendments to other civil rights statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (referred to in this section as the ADEA ), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but Congress did not expressly amend those statutes to address mixed motive discrimination. In the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), the Supreme Court held that, because Congress did not expressly amend the ADEA to address mixed motive claims, such claims were unavailable under the ADEA, and instead the complainant bears the burden of proving that a protected characteristic or protected activity was the but for cause of an unlawful employment practice.

This decision has significantly narrowed the scope of protections afforded by the statutes that were not expressly amended in 1991 to address mixed motive claims. The purposes of this Act are— to clarify congressional intent that mixed motive claims shall be available, and that a complaining party need not prove that a protected characteristic or protected activity was the but for cause of an unlawful employment practice, under the ADEA and similar civil rights provisions; to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Gross decision that Congress’ failure to amend any statute other than title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with respect to discrimination claims), in enacting section 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, suggests that Congress intended to disallow mixed motive claims under other statutes; and to clarify that complaining parties— may rely on any type or form of admissible evidence to establish their claims of an unlawful employment practice; are not required to demonstrate that the protected characteristic or activity was the sole cause of the employment practice; and may demonstrate an unlawful employment practice through any available method of proof or analytical framework.

Connections1 off-index

1 reference not yet in our index

557 U.S. 167

Citation graph

cites case law

Sec. 2

Findings and purposes

SCOTUS557 U.S. 167

Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources