New Act Lowers Bar for Discrimination Lawsuits, But Caps Damages in Mixed-Motive Cases

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2025 is hitting the reset button on how employees prove discrimination in the workplace. This bill overhauls the standard of proof across the biggest federal anti-discrimination laws—including those covering age (ADEA), race/sex/religion (Title VII), and disability (ADA)—by making it easier for a plaintiff to successfully claim that discrimination occurred.

The New Standard: From ‘The Reason’ to ‘A Reason’

Right now, if you’re suing your employer for age discrimination, you generally have to prove that age was the determining factor in the adverse decision (like being fired or passed over for a promotion). That’s a high bar. This Act lowers that requirement, stating that you only need to show that age, race, sex, or disability was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision. This means if you can prove that discrimination played some role—even if it wasn't the only reason—you can establish that the employer violated the law. This change is huge; it significantly shifts the advantage toward the employee in the initial stages of a lawsuit.

The Catch: When Winning Doesn’t Mean Getting Paid

Here’s where things get complicated. The bill introduces a critical limitation for these “motivating factor” cases. Once the employee proves that discrimination was a factor, the burden shifts to the employer. If the employer can then prove they would have made the exact same decision anyway—even without the illegal motivation—the employee’s remedies are severely limited (SEC. 2).

If the employer successfully uses this "same action" defense, the court cannot award the employee monetary damages (like lost wages or pain and suffering) or order job reinstatement, hiring, or promotion. The most you can get is declaratory relief (a formal statement that the law was broken), an injunction (a court order telling the employer to stop doing something), and coverage for the attorney’s fees you spent proving the discrimination was a motivating factor. For the average person who lost their job, proving discrimination only to find out they can’t recover lost income is a massive restriction.

What This Means for Your Next Lawsuit

Think of it this way: If you’re a 55-year-old software engineer (let’s call her Sarah) who was laid off, and you can prove your manager made age-related comments (the motivating factor), you win the first round. But if the company can show that Sarah was laid off because her entire department was eliminated due to budget cuts—a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason—they win the second round. Sarah gets her lawyer paid and a court document saying she was discriminated against, but she doesn’t get her back pay or her job back. This provision effectively creates a two-tiered system for proving discrimination, where only those who can prove the illegal factor was the sole cause (or where the employer can't prove the "same action" defense) will be eligible for full financial recovery.

Immediate Impact on Pending Cases

Section 3 of the Act specifies that these new rules—both the lower standard of proof and the capped remedies—will apply immediately to any claim or application that is currently pending when the law is signed. If you have a discrimination case filed today that hasn’t been resolved, the rules of the game just changed mid-play. Lawyers and litigants on both sides will have to pivot quickly to meet these new standards and defenses.