This bill — the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act — would clarify that considering age in any employment practice is prohibited, even if factors other than age motivated the practice in part. To establish that an unlawful employment practice occurred, a complaining party could rely on any type or form of admissible evidence that’s sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred. The complaining party wouldn’t be required to demonstrate that age or a protected activity was the sole cause of a practice as required by a Supreme Court ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Service, Inc. (2009).
For a claim in which an individual demonstrates that age was a motivating factor for an employment practice and the respondent demonstrates that they would’ve taken the same action absent the impermissible motivating factor, the court:
Could grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees or costs that are directly attributable to a claim.
Could not award damages or issue an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, or payment.