Search for: "FBL Financial Services Inc" Results 61 - 80 of 81
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2016, 11:22 am by Daniel Schwartz
FBL Financial Services, Inc. which made it harder for plaintiff-employees to prove discrimination by saying that age must be the “but-for” cause of the challenged employment action. [read post]
7 May 2010, 7:02 am by Anna Christensen
FBL Financial Services, Inc. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 4:38 am by Heidi Henson
In contrast, in Gross v FBL Financial Services, Inc, the High Court held that the ADEA requires proof that age was the “but for” cause of an adverse employment action. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:32 pm by Lorene Park
Supreme Court in Gross v FBL Financial Services also declined to import Title VII’s motivating factor standard to the ADEA, which also contained “because of” language. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 6:43 am by Joy Waltemath
FBL Financial Services, Inc., which held that older workers could no longer use the motivating factor framework derived from the same Title VII prohibition shared by the ADEA to prove unlawful age discrimination. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 5:01 am by Joy Waltemath
FBL Financial Services, Inc., overruled prior precedent permitting pattern-or-practice claims under the ADEA, the court disagreed. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 5:34 am by Joy Waltemath
FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 8:19 am by Lorene Park
FBL Financial Services) • There can be subclass discrimination, so for example, an employer who favors employees in their 50’s over those in their 70’s can be liable, even though both groups are protected by the ADEA. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 8:41 am by Persuasion Strategies
FBL Financial Services Inc. (129 S.Ct. 2343) which changed the governing law in age discrimination from one in which plaintiffs could argue that even in cases with a mixed motive, defendants are still liable for damages and costs when employment decisions include an age-discriminatory rationale. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 2:06 pm by Kevin Russell
FBL Financial Services, Inc.; (2) simply a “motivating factor” in the employment decision, a lesser standard of proof Congress adopted for race and sex discrimination claims under a 1991 amendment specific to Title VII; or (3) a “motivating factor” under a similar test the Supreme Court had applied to race and sex discrimination claims, prior to the enactment of the 1991 amendment, in its fractured decision in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:13 pm by Lisa Milam-Perez
” Of the recent High Court rulings, the Nassar decision was the “biggest deal for employers,” according to Chris Bourgeacq, general attorney, labor/HR, for AT&T Services, Inc. in Austin, Texas. [read post]