The Supreme Court issued a poorly reasoned ruling in June that makes it much harder for older workers to prove illegal age discrimination (歧视). Fortunately, bills have been introduced in the Senate and House to undo the damage and put age discrimination cases on an equal standpoint with other employment-discrimination claims. When employers discriminate, they generally do not admit it, so Congress and the courts have established rules of proof to give victims a fair chance. Generally, if workers can show that an illegal consideration, like race or national origin, was a factor in their being fired or demoted (降职), the employer then has the burden of showing that it acted for nondiscriminatory reasons. That should be the rule under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, but the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, decided that it is not. Older workers, Justice Clarence Thomas declared for the majority, have the full burden of proving that they were fired because of their age. That is an unfairly difficult standard, and it is an unreasonable interpretation of the law. As soon as the decision came down, there were calls for Congress to reverse it, much as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 reversed another poorly reasoned antiworker ruling by the court. In that case, relief was denied to an underpaid woman. Recently the Democratic chairmen of two powerful committees introduced bills to reverse the court's age ruling. They would make the standard for proving age discrimination equivalent to the standard for proving discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. When older workers lose their jobs, according to the advocacy (拥护) group AARP, it takes them longer than other workers to get new ones. Age-discrimination complaints have been rising. In 2008, the number of age cases was up 29 percent from the year earlier. Congress made clear four decades ago that it wants to protect older workers from discrimination, but the Supreme Court has tried to interfere with that effort. It is up to Congress to put the teeth back into the law .1. What can we infer from the first paragraph?A) It was very easy for older workers to win illegal age discrimination cases before June.B) Age discrimination is expected to be treated from the same perspective as other forms of discrimination in employment. C) The Senate and House have managed to correct the decision made by the Supreme Court.D) There have been historic clashes between the Supreme Court and Congress.2. According to the rule under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, if a worker can show that he was fired because of his age, ________.A) Congress and the courts must give employers a fair chanceB) employers generally would not admit that they discriminateC) employers would find it much harder to prove their innocenceD) employers have to prove that there is no discrimination involved 3. Compared to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the decision made by the Supreme Court ________.A) would make people, especially older ones misinterprete the Act of 1967B) is a difficult ruling for both workers and employers to show that they are innocentC) made it older workers' responsibility to show that they were discriminated against D) made people all over the country call for Congress to maintain it4. What are the bills about introduced by the Democratic chairmen?A) As an unfair standard, the court's decision of age ruling should be corrected. B) Older workers have the responsibility to prove they were discriminated against.C) The standards for proving discrimination of all sorts should be equivalent.D) Relief should be given to the older workers who are fired or demoted.5. What does the author mean by saying "put the teeth back into the law" in the last paragraph?A) Bring into effect the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 again. B) Reverse the present ruling to protect more older workers than four decades ago.C) Stop age-discrimination complaints by helping older workers find new jobs as soon as possible.D) Prevent older workers from being discriminated against by the Supreme Court again.