they substantially limit the protection against age discrimination given by the adea. it overturned decades of case law and congressional intent. the law shifted the burden to employers after a plaintiff showed that age was a factor, to show that the decision would have been made regardless of the plaintiffs age. under the new ruling, the workers carry an extremely difficult burden when it comes internalyers ' decisions. they have to prove that age and all other factor would have motivated this isn't -- motivated the decision -- and no other factor would have motivated the decision. the court is intent on making new law. the court had no need in this gross case to reach the question of burden-shifting and eliminating mixed motive. the actual issue before the court was, what kind of evidence plaintiff needs to present in an age discrimination case? this was transferred -- that issue was transferred to a sweeping opinion that rearranges the fundamental rules on proving age discrimination. what justice stevens called an unabashed display of judicial lawmaking. we see that

they substantially limit the protection against age discrimination given by the adea. itveurned decades of case law and congressional intent. the law shifted the burden to employers after a plaintiff showed that age was a factor, to show that the decision would have been made regardless of the plaintiffs age. under the new ruling, the workers carry an extremely difficult burden when it comes internalyers ' decisions. they have to prove that age and all other factor would have motivated this isn't -- motivated the decision -- and no other factor would have motivated the decision. the court is intent on making new law. the cot had no need in this gross case to reach the question of burden-shifting and eliminating mixed motive. the actual issue before the court was, what kind of evidence plaintiff needs to present in an age discrimination case? this was transferred -- that issue was transferred to a sweeping opinion that rearranges the fundamental rules on proving age discrimination. what justice stevens called an unabashed display of judicial lawmaking. we see that in a

in a 5-4 decision offered by justice thomas in layaway that deviated from the core purpose of the adea. the court relied heavily on the hyper-literalism. the relied on a very literal interpretation of the phrase "because of." the case overturned decades of case law. i would argue also congressional intent. the law shifted the burden to employers after a plan to show that age was a factor, to demonstrate evidence the employment decision would have been made anyway, regardless of the plaintiffs age. but under this new ruling workers carry a difficult burden when it comes to internal motivations of employers. we saw another tendency in the case which we have in a number of others recently. the court is intent upon making new law. the court had no need in the gross case to reach this question of burden-shifting and eliminating mixed motive. the actual issue before the court was what kind of evidence appointive needs to present in age discrimination cases. it arose with regard to jury instructions. that issue was transferred to a sweeping opinion the rearrange the fundamental rules on provi