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.…
On the recordJuly 31, 2013
Share
More from Patrick Leahy
Sep 15, 2022
on May 19, I echoed Secretary of State Blinken's call for an ``independent, credible investigation'' of the violent death of widely respected Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. At that time, several Members of Congress…
Dec 8, 2022
I am worried that we are heading toward another unnecessary, manufactured crisis because our current government funding is set to expire in 8 days. So I want to take a moment and talk about how we got here, and the path forward. In fiscal…
Apr 21, 2023
I can say with absolute certainty that the proposed rules directly conflict with the legislation on a variety of matters, especially on provisions that limit access to the PTAB.





