The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial

Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age

Discrimination as the Starting Point

Chen Gao

School of Law, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

Keywords: Intersectionality Theory, Age Discrimination, ADEA.

Abstract: Taking intersectionality theory as an analysis tool, by deconstructing the processing logic of age

discrimination cases in the American anti-discrimination judicial practice, this paper reveals the in-stitutional

defects of the current judgment rules in dealing with the problem of compound discrimi-nation. The study

found that there is a tendency of "identity fragmentation" in the application of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA) by federal courts, which makes it difficult for vic-tims of compound discrimination

to obtain effective relief. It is suggested to construct a three-dimensional review framework, conduct dynamic

correlation analysis between the age element and other elements such as race and gender, and innovate the

judicial relief system through the cascading burden-shifting framework and the dynamic compensation model.

1 INTRODUCTION

Under the dual background of the intensification of

global aging and the diversified development of

society, anti-discrimination laws are facing

institutional challenges in transforming from single-

dimensional protection to complex rights relief. At

present, the global trend of population aging is

becoming increasingly prominent, and the proportion

of the elderly population in society continues to rise.

Meanwhile, the degree of social diversity is

constantly increasing, and the status and demands of

groups of different races, genders, religious beliefs,

sexual orientations, etc. in society are becoming

increasingly diverse. This dual background makes

anti-discrimination laws need to adapt to the new

social reality and shift from focusing only on a single

discrimination factor to a complex rights remedy that

comprehensively considers multiple discrimination

factors.

As a representative country of the case law system,

the United States has exposed its systematic failure in

dealing with compound discrimination since the

implementation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA) half a century ago. ADEA

aims to prohibit employers from discriminating

against employees aged 40 and above based on age

factors, which has played an important role in

safeguarding the employment rights and interests of

elderly workers. However, with the complexity of the

social structure, single-dimensional anti-

discrimination protection has been difficult to deal

with the widespread compound discrimination

phenomena in reality, especially the interweaving of

age discrimination with racial and gender

discrimination.

The intersectionality theory emphasizes the

interweaving and influence among different identity

elements, providing a new perspective for

understanding the phenomenon of compound

discrimination. This paper aims to examine the

deficiencies of the anti-discrimination judicial

adjudication rules in the United States in dealing with

age discrimination and compound discrimination

from the perspective of the intersectionality theory,

and propose feasible paths for reconstructing the

adjudication rules, providing a new paradigm for

improving the equal rights protection mechanism.

Gao, C.

The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age Discrimination as the Starting Point.

DOI: 10.5220/0014298900004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 165-173

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

165

2 THE RAISING OF THE

PROBLEM: INSTITUTIONAL

DILEMMA FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF

INTERSECTIONALITY

2.1 Structural Defects of American

Anti-Discrimination Law

The current anti-discrimination legal system in the

United States presents the feature of "parallel

protection", that is, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

(1964) and the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act (ADEA) (1967) have constructed a dual

regulatory framework for racial, gender

discrimination and age discrimination respectively.

This legislative model was initially formulated with

the aim of addressing discrimination issues in

different fields respectively, which has certain

rationality and pertinence. However, with the

development of society and the complication of

discrimination phenomena, its drawbacks have

gradually emerged. This legislative model

emphasizes isolated identity traits rather than

intersectional realities. As a result, federal courts

often adopt the "element separation analysis method"

when hearing cases involving multiple discriminatory

elements, requiring plaintiffs to clearly distinguish

the mechanism of action of different discriminatory

elements in litigation, present distinct and

independent claims for each identity category, which

obscures the compounded nature of discrimination.

This issue is evident in Smith v. City of Jackson

(2005), where older African-American officers

challenged a pay policy under ADEA. He believed

that he had suffered double discrimination based on

age and race at work. For instance, in terms of

promotion opportunities, the company preferred to

select younger white employees. However, the court

required him to prove the existence of age

discrimination and racial discrimination respectively,

and to clearly distinguish the roles of the two in the

employment decision. Due to the overly strict

requirements, the plaintiff found it difficult to provide

sufficient evidence, ultimately resulting in the failure

to support his claim of compound discrimination. The

Supreme Court clearly pointed out that ADEA is not

applicable to the compound discrimination claim

based on age and other factors. When elderly black

employees claimed "age + race" discrimination, the

court refused to apply the differential influence

theory, resulting in the dismemberment of the

compound discrimination claim. While the court

recognized for the first time that ADEA permits

disparate impact claims, it imposed the "reasonable

factors other than age" (RFOA) standard, which is

significantly weaker than Title VII's "business

necessity" test. Crucially, the court ignored the

intersectional nature of the plaintiffs' identities,

analyzing only age discrimination and disregarding

race. This tendency of "identity fragmentation"

ignores the interconnections and influences among

different discriminatory elements, making it difficult

for victims of compound discrimination to obtain

effective judicial relief. Benjes (2005) termed this a

"doctrinal victory but a practical defeat", as the ruling

denied real avenues for relief.

The fragmented legal design causes institutional

dislocation in three ways: (1) Protection Gaps -

ADEA covers only those over 40, and Title VII

excludes age entirely; (2) Conflicting Standards -

ADEA requires "but-for" causation (Gross v. FBL,

2009), while Title VII permits mixed-motive claims;

(3) Unequal Remedies - ADEA caps compensation.

As Nikpey and Bazargan (2022) argue, this rigid

framework renders intersectional claims "visible but

not actionable," masking the systemic nature of

multiple-identity oppression and weakening

plaintiffs' rights. The Smith case exemplifies how

U.S. courts continue to deny legal space for

compound discrimination.

2.2 The Particularity of Age

Discrimination

Unlike "solidified identities" such as race and gender,

age is a highly mobile identity variable. Everyone will

experience the transition from "young to middle-aged

to old" in the life cycle. Therefore, age discrimination

is more universal and hidden. The structural

oppression it brings is often further amplified in the

intersectionality identity. Especially in the labor

market, elderly women, ethnic minorities and other

groups of elderly workers are facing the double or

even multiple depreciation effects of "gender/race,

etc. + age".

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), the total number of age

discrimination complaints increased by 17% between

2015 and 2020. Among them, the proportion of cases

involving compound discrimination factors increased

from 58% to 67%, reflecting age discrimination often

does not exist in isolation but is intertwined with other

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

166

discriminatory elements. It is particularly noteworthy

that the number of complaints from women over 55 is

2.3 times that of men of the same age, and older

Latino workers win discrimination cases at one-

quarter the rate of their white counterparts. This not

only reflects the structural disadvantages of elderly

women and elderly ethnic minorities in the labor

market, but also exposes the inadequacy of the current

judicial system in identifying compound

discrimination cases.

However, in current judicial practice, courts

generally require plaintiffs to choose a single cause of

action for litigation. Take the case of Villareal v. R. J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co. as an example, the plaintiff is

a male job seeker over 55 years old, he filed a lawsuit

because he was automatically excluded from the

enterprise recruitment system. In this case, the

Eleventh Circuit Court refused to accept the claim of

"age + gender" compound discrimination, and the

plaintiff was required to prove an independent causal

chain for each of the two discriminations. This

judicial thinking of "disaggregated causation"

essentially denies the interaction between compound

identities. Marginal groups such as elderly women

and ethnic minorities are caught in the dilemma of

proof in the process of safeguarding their rights.

Social psychological research further reveals the

deep logic of this compound oppression. Correll's

(2019) experimental study shows that in the

workplace assessment, older women are 73% less

likely to be promoted than younger men because they

are labeled as both "old" and "indecisive". They not

only face the "glass ceiling" effect, that is, their

promotion opportunities are limited, but also bear the

pressure of "age stigmatization", that is, their working

ability is underestimated due to their age. The bias

towards older men or younger women is relatively

light. This suggests that composite identities are not

simply additive, but are amplified through interactive

mechanisms.

In addition, Boni-Saenz (2019) pointed out from

the perspective of legal philosophy that the

uniqueness of age discrimination lies in its "life cycle

fluidity" (temporal). An individual's age and identity

are constantly changing, today's "non-elderly" will

eventually become the "discriminated" in the future.

Therefore, age discrimination not only denies the

current identity value of the parties., but also implies

the structural rejection of the individual's "future

self". This kind of institutional harm across the time

dimension makes age discrimination more seriously

examined and dealt with under the compound cutting

framework.

3 THE JUDICIAL APPLICATION

PATH OF

INTERSECTIONALITY

THEORY

3.1 Theoretical Paradigm Shift: From

Single Dimension to Composite

Analysis

The intersectionality theory proposed by Kimberly

Cronshaw, an American scholar of critical race

theory, provides a revolutionary analytical framework

for deconstructing the discrimination mechanism in

contemporary society. This theory emphasizes that

the social power structure resulting from

discrimination has multi-dimensional interactivity,

breaks through the limitation of "uniaxial analysis" in

traditional affirmative action movements, and reveals

the dynamic interaction of multiple identity elements

in the social power structure - when elements such as

age, gender, and race have a superimposed effect in a

specific social context, it will give rise to a compound

form of oppression that is difficult to capture by

traditional anti-discrimination laws.

In the study of the labor market, the

intersectionality theory demonstrates strong

explanatory power. Statistics show that the

unemployment rate of elderly Latino women (8.9%)

is not only significantly higher than that of white men

(3.1%), but also exceeds the arithmetic superposition

expectations of each individual factor (EEOC,2021).

This nonlinear growth confirms the "triple exclusion

mechanism" emphasized by Klenshaw: At the

structural level, age discrimination is nested within

the institutional matrix of racism and patriarchy; In

the political dimension, the multiplier exclusion

effect of social security policies on elderly ethnic

minorities; In the representational field, the image of

the "ideal worker" constructed by the media

systematically excludes multiple identity groups.

This theoretical framework reveals three core

characteristics of the modern discrimination

mechanism: First, the non-additivity of the

oppression system, that is, the exclusion force

generated by the compound effect far exceeds the sum

of individual elements; Secondly, the concealment of

institutional violence, that is, the system dissolves

legal liability through the interaction of elements;

The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age

Discrimination as the Starting Point

167

Thirdly, the complexity of identity politics, that is, the

traditional path of rights protection is difficult to deal

with multi-dimensional power oppression. These

findings prompt us to re-examine the boundaries of

relief in anti-discrimination laws and promote the

establishment of more inclusive judicial

determination standards.

3.2 Institutional Innovation

Breakthroughs: System

Breakthroughs from the

Perspective of Comparative Law

Unlike the American judicial system, which has long

adhered to "single-axis reasoning" on the issue of

compound discrimination. In the legislative and

judicial practice of the European Union and Canada,

a more inclusive multi-dimensional discrimination

identification mechanism has been gradually

established, forming an institutional response to the

"oppression of overlapping identities".

Article 3 of the Directive on Equal Treatment

(Directive 2000/78/EC) promulgated by the

European Union in 2000 clearly stipulates that: when

implementing anti-discrimination legislation in the

fields of employment and occupation, it should cover

multiple discrimination and its intersectional forms.

This directive incorporates compound discrimination

into the scope of legal regulation, requiring member

states to fully consider the mutual influence among

different identity elements when formulating and

implementing anti-discrimination laws, and prohibit

discriminatory behaviors resulting from the

combination of multiple identity elements, providing

a legal basis for member states to handle complex

discrimination issues.

In the Feryn case (C-54/07, 2008), for the first

time, the European Court of Justice confirmed that an

employer's suggestion in a recruitment advertisement

not to hire an elderly job seeker of a specific race

constituted direct discrimination. This judicial

approach of using age as a moderating factor for the

intensity of discrimination provides an important

reference for judicial reform in the United States. In

this case, the defendant's business owner said that he

would "not employ older North Africans". Based on

this, the court concluded that the employer's

employment criteria had a double identity bias - that

is, the compound exclusion of age and race (European

Court of Justice, 2008). The court further held that

such recruitment advertisements not only violated the

anti-racial discrimination regulations, but also

exacerbated the degree of discrimination by

combining age factors with racial factors.

This case has three important implications for

American judicial practice: First, compound

examination of elements, that is, Feryn shows that the

court does not require the plaintiff to strictly

disassemble the different elements of identity, rather,

it focuses on the interplay between different elements

of discrimination - for example, "not employing men

of North African descent over the age of 50"

constitutes direct evidence of compound

discrimination; Secondly, inversion of the burden of

proof, that is, once the plaintiff provides prima facie

evidence of differential treatment, the burden of proof

is transferred to the defendant - they are required to

demonstrate reasonable and objective justification for

personnel decisions; Thirdly, dynamic calculation of

compensation, that is, in the judicial practice of some

EU member states, judges can be based on the

complexity of the degree of discrimination -

compensation is adjusted upward (eg. weighted 30%)

to include age, sex, race, etc., as "penalty factors"

(Fredman, p.2011).

Similarly, Canada has shown a more systematic

institutional response to the identification of

compound discrimination. Take the case of

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de

la jeunesse v. Bombardier Inc. as an example, the

Supreme Court of Canada first put forward the

judgment logic of "matrix of oppression". They

believed that the plaintiff was an "elderly aboriginal

woman", the housing discrimination they suffer

cannot be explained by any single dimension

(Supreme Court of Canada, 2015). The court stated

that judges should not avoid review on the grounds of

"unclear claims" or "overlapping elements" when

finding compound discrimination. Instead, they

should comprehensively evaluate the interaction

effects among various elements.

This is different from the split analysis of

"compound identity" in Smith case and Gross case by

the Federal Court of the United States. The European

and Canadian judicial mechanism emphasizes

"inseparability" and "cumulative impact". It provides

a theoretical paradigm and feasible path for the

United States to abandon the "factor splitting

doctrine" (Hannett, 2003).

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

168

4 THE EMPIRICAL STUDY OF

AMERICAN JUDICIAL

ADJUDICATION RULES

4.1 Separation of Identity Elements in

the Application of ADEA

To further examine the ability of U.S. judicial practice

to deal with compound discrimination, this paper uses

the LexisNexis database to conduct a text analysis of

286 cases related to the Anti-Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA) that were heard by U.S.

federal courts from 2010 to 2020. The main findings

are as follows:

Firstly, the element isolation argument, that is,

78% of the judicial documents require the plaintiff to

separately prove the independent role of the age

factor, without conducting an overall review with

other identity factors (such as gender and race). For

instance, in the case of Bodkin v. Town of Stratford

(2017), the court explicitly excluded the plaintiff's

claim of compound oppression based on gender and

age and only examined "age discrimination".

Secondly, the neglect of the intersection theory, that

is, the term "intersectionality" or related terms only

appear in 12% of the judgments, reflects the

marginalization of the concept of compound

discrimination in the judicial discourse system.

Thirdly, the effectiveness of relief is lacking, that is,

the difference is not only reflected in the "element

separation" of the trial logic, but also in the

"weakening of compensatory nature" of the judgment

results - on the one hand, in the case of explicitly

claiming compound discrimination, the average

failure rate is as high as 83%, significantly higher

than that of single discrimination cases (about 64%);

on the other hand, the average compensation amount

for compound discrimination cases is $ 42,000, which

is lower than the $ 67,000 for single discrimination

cases.

This empirical study shows that ADEA, as a

"single-axis code", has difficulty dealing with the

complex structure of "age + X" type cases in judicial

practice. When facing complex identity groups, such

as elderly women, ethnic minorities, or disabled

people, it is more likely to encounter institutional

obstacles, such as evidence isolation, ineffective

proof, and weakened compensation.

4.2 The Binary Opposition

Predicament of Typical Cases

The core judgment logic of the United States Supreme

Court in age discrimination cases has long maintained

a "binary determinism" stance, that is to say, it must

be recognized that age is the sole decisive factor (but

not a causal relationship) in constituting illegal acts.

This standard was established by Justice Lord Scalia

in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

(2009), requiring the plaintiff to prove that age was the

sole factor in the employment decision and explicitly

excluding the application of the "mixed motivation

theory". This strict standard of proof essentially denies

the possibility of compound discrimination. As a

result, all claims involving compound identities are

excluded from justiciability under the ADEA system

(Gross, 2009). This jurisprudence has been widely

criticized as a "structural blocking" of intersectionality

claims, that is, when there are any "other factors"

(such as gender, race) may affect decision-making, the

plaintiff will not be able to meet the "but-for" standard,

thus automatically losing the right to judicial

protection.

The adjudication paths of lower courts show

obvious differentiation. For example, in Villareal v.

R.J. Reynolds, the Eleventh Circuit not only rejected

the plaintiff's intersectional claim, but also insisted on

proving age and gender as separate causal chains. The

court stated that "the plaintiff must isolate each

identity trait as an independent motivating factor",

thereby ignoring any interaction effect. This strict

disaggregation doctrine reflects the structural

exclusion of intersectional harms. In Babb v. Wilkie

(2020), while the majority upheld the "but-for"

causation standard from Gross, Justice Alito first put

forward in his dissenting opinion that the "mixed

motive" effect of discriminatory elements should be

recognized. Although this view was not adopted by the

majority, it laid the groundwork for subsequent

judicial reforms. Justice Alito believes that in real life,

discriminatory behavior is often driven by multiple

factors, and discrimination cannot be denied merely

because of the existence of other legitimate factors. He

acknowledged that "age may exacerbate preexisting

gender or racial bias". This viewpoint provides new

ideas for re-examining the issue of compound

discrimination and also offers certain theoretical

support for future judicial reforms. Lower courts have

attempted to implement intersectional reasoning. For

instance, the Second Circuit in Lennon v. City of New

York (2021) attempted to introduce the "holistic

review" standard to comprehensively examine claims

of compound discrimination based on age and race.

The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age

Discrimination as the Starting Point

169

However, the judgment was eventually remanded for

a retrial by the Supreme Court on the grounds of

"unclear analysis and unclear elements". It further

highlights the structural exclusion of non-single-axis

demands by the current system, indicating that courts

are institutionally unprepared for compound claims.

5 THE FEASIBLE PATH FOR

RECONSTRUCTING JUDICIAL

ADJUDICATION RULES

5.1 Objective Element: Three-

Dimensional Review Framework

In view of the fact that it is difficult to identify the

essence of compound discrimination in current

judicial practice, this paper proposes to construct a

three-dimensional analysis model consisting of

"identity elements - power structure - damage results"

to achieve a more comprehensive review of the

substance of the case and identify the facts.

First, conduct a interactive review of the elements

of identity. The court should adopt the standard of

"reasonable possibility" to evaluate whether there is a

linkage effect between multiple identity elements (eg.

age, gender, race). If a certain factor (such as age) and

other factors jointly cause the intensity of

discrimination to increase by more than 20%, it can

be presumed that compound discrimination is

constituted. In terms of specific operation, the

"identity matrix" shown in Table 1 can introduce

analytical tools to quantify the interaction weights of

each identity variable, to assist in judging the

complex compression structure of the individual.

Table 1. Weighted assessment of identity dimensions in

employment evaluation.

Identity

Dimension

Weight

Coefficien

Evaluation Criteria

Age 0.35

Job Fit, Training Cost,

Expected Tenure

Gender 0.25

Degree of Occupational

Segregation, Promotion

Barriers

Race/Ethnicity 0.20

Wage Disparity,

Disciplinary Rate

Disability 0.20

Reasonable

Accommodation Cost,

Misjudgment of

Productivity

Secondly, carry out the identification of

organizational structure bias. The research results of

social psychology and organizational behavior should

be incorporated into judicial evaluation. By reviewing

the organizational structure, rules and regulations,

and corporate culture of employers, possible

institutional discrimination issues can be identified,

such as age restrictions in recruitment advertisements

and implicit biases in promotion mechanisms. For

example, the "double implicit bias model" proposed

by Greenwald (2020) is adopted to identify the non-

explicit exclusion mechanisms that may be embedded

in the recruitment and promotion processes.

Meanwhile, the court may require the defendant to

submit anti-compound discrimination training

records and internal positive audit data to assess

whether there are structural biases in its

organizational culture.

Finally, put through a quantitative analysis of

differential influence. In order to quantify the

compounding effects of intersecting identity factors

(eg. age and gender), courts can construct a multiple

regression model including interaction terms to

quantitatively analyze the role of age elements and

other discrimination elements in discriminatory

behaviors, determine the specific contribution ratio of

age elements in compound discrimination, and

provide a scientific basis for damages compensation.

The following model settings are adopted in this

study:

Y = β0 + β1 Age + β2 Race +

β3 (Age × Race) + ε (1)

Among them, Y is the explained variable (such as

employment decisions, salary levels, etc.), Age is the

age variable, Race is the race category variable

(usually set as a dummy variable), and the interaction

term Age×Race is used to capture the synergy effect

between age and race. The significance test of the

model parameter β3 is the core basis for determining

compound discrimination: If its P-value is less than

the preset significance level (such as 0.05), it

indicates that the influence of age on the outcome

variable Y is heterogeneous due to different races,

that is, systemic compound discrimination exists.

Specifically, significant positive or negative

interaction effects (β3 ≠ 0) suggest that different

ethnic groups are treated differently in the age

dimension. For example, the age increase of a certain

ethnic minority may lead to a significantly greater

decline in the Y value (such as the probability of

promotion) than that of other ethnic groups. This

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

170

asymmetric effect cannot be explained alone by the

main effect (β1 or β2). It is worth noting that this

conclusion needs to satisfy the linear assumption of

the model and collinearity control, and the

interference of confounding variables needs to be

excluded to ensure the causal inference validity of the

discrimination effect.

5.2 Procedural Rules: Stepped

Transfer of Burden of Proof

Compound discrimination cases are often difficult to

establish in the existing judicial process because of

the complex interaction of identity elements and the

broken chain of evidence. In response to the difficulty

of the plaintiff's proof, the unclear criteria for the

court's determination and the monopoly of the

defendant's information, this paper proposes to

introduce the "cascading burden-shifting framework"

shown in Table 2 into the procedural mechanism,

design a three-stage procedure of "preliminary proof

- substantive evidence presentation - comprehensive

determination" to construct a procedural rule

structure that better meets the compound cutting

requirements.

Table 2. Three-stage burden of proof framework in

compond discrimination cases.

Stage

Plaintiff's

Burden of

Proof

Defendan

t's

Rebuttal

Standard of

Proof

Preliminary

Proof

Provide

evidence of

intersection

al and

surface-

level harm

None

Reasonable

Possibility

(30%)

Substantive

Proof

Refute the

defendant's

non-

discriminato

explanation

Prove the

objectivit

y and

neutrality

decision-

making

Preponderan

ce of

Evidence

(51%)

Comprehensi

Determinatio

Demonstrat

e interaction

of factors

Present

mitigating

factors to

reduce

damages

Clear and

Convincing

(75%)

The objective of the first stage, in which the

plaintiff bears the prima facie burden of proof, is not

to directly prove the existence of a "decisive motive"

for discrimination, rather, it provides prima facie

evidence sufficient to establish the existence of

compound discrimination. Such evidence may

include statistical data, organizational practices, or

discriminatory statements. For example, if the

plaintiff can be shown to be in a particular group (eg.

the acceptance rate or promotion rate is significantly

lower than that of other groups), supplemented by

evidence of the existence of identity stereotypes, then

the "reasonable inference threshold" (Boni-Saenz,

2019) can be met.

After entering the second stage, the burden of

proof shifts to the defendant. The core requirement of

this stage is that employers must provide credible

evidence to prove the legitimacy of their personnel

decisions, and is not adversely affected by the

applicant's compound status. This means that the

defendant should show that the relevant decisions are

based on uniform objective criteria (such as

performance indicators, technical capabilities, etc.),

which can reasonably eliminate the interference of

identity factors. For instance, the defendant can

provide detailed records of the recruitment process,

standards and results of performance assessment, and

other evidence. If the employer fails to prove that its

decision-making process does not have the

intervention of compound cutting discrimination

factors, it will be regarded as a failure of proof

(Fredman, 2011).

In the final determination stage, the court should

make a judgment by synthesizing the evidence of the

whole case and adopt the "standard of preponderance

of evidence". The court will conduct a comprehensive

and objective assessment of the evidence provided by

the plaintiff and the defendant, and determine whether

there is any compound discrimination based on the

probative force and credibility of the evidence. At the

same time, it allows the introduction of multiple

materials such as expert evaluation reports, statistical

model output and third-party review opinions. The

design of this procedural rule aims to balance the

evidential capacity of both sides and ensure that

victims of compound discrimination can obtain fair

judicial relief.

This mechanism has initially formed institutional

experience in EU practice. Article 10 of the Equal

Treatment Directive, for example, expressly provides

that if the plaintiff provides reasonable evidence of

the existence of differential treatment, the burden of

proof is on the employer (EU Directive 2000/78/EC,

Article 10). This procedural inversion provides a

The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age

Discrimination as the Starting Point

171

practical path for identifying compound

discrimination, and has also been used for reference

by some cases in Canada and the United Kingdom

(Hannett, 2003).

To sum up, the procedural justice of compound

cutting cases lies not only in whether to give the

opportunity to review, more importantly, it depends

on whether the system has designed a proof path that

can identify the structural oppression caused by

"identity superposition". By setting an explicit three-

stage procedure, combined with the complexity

nature of the intersectionality theory, it can effectively

respond to the structural difficulties of "invisible,

unclear and unwinnable" faced by victims of

compound discrimination in the judicial process for a

long time.

5.3 Relief Mechanism: Dynamic

Damage Compensation Model

In cases of compound discrimination, the damage

suffered by the victim is often not limited to economic

loss. It also involves dignity damage, occupational

exclusion and structural inequality under the

interaction of multiple identity factors. Therefore, the

traditional fixed compensation standard is difficult to

fully cover the damage structure of compound

discrimination. To fully compensate for the losses of

victims of compound discrimination, this paper

proposes to establish a "dynamic damage

compensation model", that is, a quantitative

calculation formula composed of "basic

compensation + compound reinforcement

coefficient" as the core, so as to achieve a more

precise and structural justice-oriented relief design in

judicial practice.

The model suggests the following formula for

determining the total amount of compensation:

Total compensation = basic compensation ×

(1 + compound reinforcement coeficient) +

punitive damages (2)

Compound reinforcement coeficient =

0.2 × number of discrimination elements +

0.1 × interactional intensity (3)

Among them, the compound reinforcement

coefficient is composed of two variables: One is the

number of discrimination elements (such as age,

gender, race, etc.), 0.2 for each additional element;

Another is interactional intensity, that is, whether

there is an additive effect or structural enhancement

between the elements, the maximum weighting is 0.3,

and the total factor ranges from 0.2 to 1.5. For

example, if a plaintiff encounters age and gender

discrimination at the same time, and the combined

effect results in the complete deprivation of job

promotion opportunities, the crossover coefficient

can be set between 0.5 and 0.7 (Crenshaw, 1991;

Fredman, 2011).

In addition to monetary compensation, non-

monetary relief mechanisms should also be

institutionalized, that is, the introduction of the

Intersectional Anti-Discrimination Compliance

Order. Such an order should be part of the court's

decision, requiring the enterprise or employer to

complete an internal compound cutting impact

assessment within a certain period of time to eview

the impact of its policies and practices on different

identity groups, and to formulate preventive

improvement measures. The evaluation includes

recruitment criteria, performance evaluation process

and possible compound bias mechanism in the

promotion system. A full review is required at least

every two years (Boni-Saenz, 2019). This mechanism

not only has the educational function, but also

promotes the structural transformation of corporate

governance model through institutional intervention.

This kind of relief mode of "structural

compensation + system repair" breaks through the

limitation of traditional "individualism-economic

compensation" thinking, which is more in line with

the causal relationship between multi-dimensional

oppression and systematic injustice emphasized by

the theory of intersectionality. In practice, some

human rights commissions in Britain and Canada

have begun to explore similar models. Through the

combination of compound identification and

quantitative punishment mechanism, the substantive

fairness of judicial response is improved (Hannett,

2003; Supreme Court of Canada, 2015).

6 CONCLUSION

In the contemporary United States, the aging of the

population and the diversification of identity are

evolving simultaneously. The current anti-

discrimination legal system relies on a single

dimension of review logic has been difficult to

respond to the systematic oppression of compound

identity groups in the workplace and social life.

Particularly in age discrimination cases, judicial

practice has long adhered to the parallel application

logic of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA) and Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act. It

not only leads to structural obstacles such as "factor

fragmentation", "standard conflict" and "uneven

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

172

relief", but also further weakens the justiciability and

sense of acquisition of victims with complex

identities in the judicial path.

This paper advocates that the paradigm shift

should be based on the theory of intersection, and the

rules of adjudication should be systematically

reconstructed. From the three-dimensional review

framework to the stepped transfer of burden of proof,

then to the dynamic damage compensation model, it

not only provides a theoretical framework, but also

points out the practical path for the system reform.

Through these reforms, the judicial system will be

able to go beyond the "mechanical justice" of formal

equality to further realize the constitutional value

orientation of "substantive equality" and "structural

justice" (Fredman, 2011).

Facing the future, the key to the reform of anti-

discrimination system in the United States is to

establish the legitimacy of "compound

discrimination" as an independent legal category

through case law. It can also promote the introduction

of separate legislation represented by the Anti-

Compound-Discrimination Act. This will not only

help to fill the protection gap in the current system,

but also truly respond to the historical aphasia of

"invisible, non-actionable and non-compensable

victims of complex identities" at the level of the rule

of law.

As Crenshaw (1991) put it, intersectionality is not

only a theoretical perspective, but also an institutional

commitment. In the context of the increasingly

complex social structure of the United States,

compound discrimination should be recognized and

regulated. It is a necessary step for justice to move

towards truly inclusive justice.

REFERENCES

Bazargan, S. 2022. Intersectionality and compound

discrimination: The critical approach to anti-

discrimination law. Public Law Research 23(74):81–

212.

Benjes, H. 2005. Smith v. City of Jackson: A pretext of

victory for employees. Brandeis Law Journal

43(2):365–376.

Boni-Saenz, A. 2019. Age, time, and discrimination.

California Law Review 107(4):1057–1113.

Correll, S.J., Benard, S. & Paik, I. 2007. Getting a job: Is

there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of

Sociology 112(5):1297–1338.

Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of

race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum

1989(1):139–167.

Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins:

Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against

women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6):1241–

1299.

Fiss, O. 1976. Groups and the equal protection clause.

Philosophy & Public Affairs 5(2):107–177.

Greenwald, A.G. & Krieger, L.H. 2006. Implicit bias:

Scientific foundations. California Law Review

94(4):945–967.

Hannett, S. 2003. Equality at the intersections: The

legislative and judicial failure to tackle multiple

discrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

23(1):65–86.

Throsby, D. 1994. A work-preference model of artist

behaviour. In V.A. Ginsburgh & C.D. Throsby (eds),

Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, Vol. 1.

Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.567–578.

Fredman, S. 2011. Discrimination Law. Oxford University

Press.

EEOC. 2021. Age Discrimination in Employment Act: 50

Years of Progress. Washington, DC.

European Court of Justice. 2008. Centrum voor gelijkheid

van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v. Firma Feryn

NV, Case C-54/07.

Supreme Court of Canada. 2015. Commission des droits de

la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. Bombardier

Inc., 2015 SCC 39.

U.S. Court of Appeals (11th Cir.). 2016. Villareal v. R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958.

U.S. Supreme Court. 2009. Gross v. FBL Financial

Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167.

U.S. Supreme Court. 2013. University of Texas

Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338.

U.S. Supreme Court. 2020. Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___.

Council of the European Union. 2000. Council Directive

2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a

general framework for equal treatment in employment

and occupation. Official Journal of the European

Communities L303:16–22.

Brett, B. 2024. Civil procedure—Hypothetical jurisdiction

and hypothetical judgments—Doe v. Town of Lisbon,

78 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2023). Suffolk J. Trial & App.

Advoc. 30:155.

Havercroft, I. & Raji, N.A.B.E.E.L.A. 2023. CCS Legal

and Regulatory Indicator 2023.

The Construction of American Anti-Discrimination Judicial Adjudication Rules Under the Theory of Intersectionality: Take Age

Discrimination as the Starting Point

173