HR 5423 Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.
Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude the application of such title to employment practices that are in compliance with Federal regulations, and State laws, in certain areas.
Summary
This bill amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add an exemption protecting employers from discrimination lawsuits when they follow employment practices that are required by federal, state, or local law. The exemption covers practices in sectors including health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties. Employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies that comply with legally-required employment practices may not be held liable under Title VII for those practices. The bill responds to concerns about EEOC enforcement guidance that allegedly conflicted with federal and state legal requirements, particularly regarding the use of criminal background checks for certain positions mandated by law.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.
Sponsor (1)
- Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7] (R-MI)
2 cosponsors
- Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] (R-NC)
- Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN-4] (R-IN)
Actions (4)
- Nov 17, 2014 Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. · house
- Sep 17, 2014 Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections Prior to Referral. · house
- Sep 9, 2014 Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. · house
- Sep 9, 2014 Introduced in House
Similar bills (6)
Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.
Full text
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 9, 2014
Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Hudson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce
A BILL
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude the application of such title to employment practices that are in compliance with Federal regulations, and State laws, in certain areas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has, since 1965, been responsible for enforcing Federal laws against employment discrimination, but there are growing concerns about the enforcement and policy approach adopted by the EEOC, raising questions about whether the best interests of workers and employers are being served.
(2) The EEOC may promulgate guidance under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that guidance does not have the force of law, and in some cases has been rejected by the courts.
(3) In 2012, the EEOC promulgated enforcement guidance regarding the use of criminal background checks that put employers in the position of acting contrary to Federal, State, and local laws that require employers to conduct criminal background checks for certain positions, such as public safety officers, teachers, and daycare providers.
(4) In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., a case challenging Peoplemark’s use of criminal background checks in making employment decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in October 2013 affirmed an award of $751,942 against the EEOC for prevailing defendant Peoplemark’s attorney’s and expert fees.
(5) In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a case challenging Kaplan’s use of credit reports in the hiring process, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Kaplan and stated that the EEOC brought a case on the basis of a “homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself”.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.
Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(o) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency, or for a joint labor management committee controlling apprenticeships or other training or retraining opportunities, to engage in an employment practice that is required by Federal, State, or local law, in an area such as, but not limited to, health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties.”. <all>
Comments