It now appears that the Gross ADEA decision might be going the way of the Ledbetter pay discrimination Title VII decision.  From CQ Politics:

A trio of top Democrats from both chambers plan legislation aimed at rolling back a Supreme Court ruling they say makes it harder for plaintiffs to win age discrimination suits.

Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday they will introduce a bill to restore a less-demanding burden of proof for plaintiffs in age discrimination suits. Rep. George Miller , D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said he intends to introduce a similar measure.

The proposed legislation is a response to the Supreme Court’s June 2009 ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that plaintiffs claiming disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must show that age was the determining factor in the alleged discrimination, rather than just one of several factors . . . .

Under the proposed legislation, the burden would be on the employer to show it complied with the law once a plaintiff shows age discrimination was a “motivating factor” behind an employment decision.

What I particularly like about the Congressional response is that in announcing the legislation, Sen. Leahy quite rightly referred to the Supreme Court’s decision as an activist decision by conservative justices.

Of courses when I say that “Gross Goes Ledbetter,” I refer to the fact that President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act making it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination, responding to the restrictive 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter.