1.This Act may be cited as the
Civil Rights Act of
2008
.
2.The table of contents
for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I—NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES
Subtitle A—Private Rights of Action and the Disparate Impact
Standard of Proof
Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Prohibited discrimination.
Sec. 103. Rights of action.
Sec. 104. Right of recovery.
Sec. 105. Construction.
Sec. 106. Effective date.
Subtitle B—Harassment
Sec. 111. Findings.
Sec. 112. Right of recovery.
Sec. 113. Construction.
Sec. 114. Effective date.
TITLE II—EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
MILITARY SERVICE
Sec. 201. Amendment to the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
TITLE III—EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR AGE
DISCRIMINATION
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings.
Sec. 303. Purposes.
Sec. 304. Remedies for State employees.
Sec. 305. Disparate impact claims.
Sec. 306. Effective date.
TITLE IV—IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS AND WORKERS’ RIGHTS
Subtitle A—Air Carrier Access Act of 1986
Amendment
Sec. 401. Findings.
Sec. 402. Civil action.
Subtitle B—Prevailing Party
Sec. 411. Short title.
Sec. 412. Definition of prevailing party.
Subtitle C—Arbitration
Sec. 421. Short title.
Sec. 422. Amendment to Federal Arbitration Act.
Sec. 423. Unenforceability of arbitration clauses in employment
contracts.
Sec. 424. Application of amendments.
Subtitle D—Expert Witness Fees
Sec. 431. Purpose.
Sec. 432. Findings.
Sec. 433. Effective provisions.
Subtitle E—Equal Remedies Act of 2008
Sec. 441. Short title.
Sec. 442. Equalization of remedies.
Subtitle F—Prohibitions Against Sex Discrimination
Sec. 451. Findings.
Sec. 452. Enhanced enforcement of equal pay
requirements.
Subtitle G—Protections for Workers
Chapter 1—Protection for Undocumented Workers
Sec. 461. Findings.
Sec. 462. Continued application of backpay
remedies.
Chapter 2—Fair Labor Standards Act Amendments
Sec. 466. Short title.
Sec. 467. Findings.
Sec. 468. Purposes.
Sec. 469. Remedies for State employees.
<enum>I</enum><header>NONDISCRIMINATION
IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES</header>
<subtitle id="IDD4454F8502854A749100598E543DB2B5"><enum>A</enum><header>Private Rights of
Action and the Disparate Impact Standard of Proof</header>
<section id="IDE067D3A7498B405D936738D75635136F"><enum>101.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="IDCF051F74DDF04CEA9ACAF821AEFE2FDA"><enum>(1)</enum><text>This subtitle is
made necessary by a decision of the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532
U.S. 275 (2001) that significantly impairs statutory protections against
discrimination that Congress has erected over a period of almost 4 decades. The
Sandoval decision undermines these statutory protections by stripping victims
of discrimination (defined under regulations that Congress required Federal
departments and agencies to promulgate to implement title VI of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.)) of the right to bring action in Federal court to redress the
discrimination.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID0BC4B620700F4578BA875F0DB2F9AAE9"><enum>(2)</enum><text>The Sandoval
decision contradicts settled expectations created by title VI of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>, title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972 (also known as the <quote>Patsy Takemoto
Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act</quote>) (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), and section 504 of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> (29 U.S.C. 794)
(collectively referred to in this Act as the <quote>covered civil rights
provisions</quote>). The covered civil rights provisions were designed to
establish and make effective the rights of persons to be free from
discrimination on the part of entities that are subject to 1 or more of the
covered civil rights provisions, as appropriate (referred to in this Act as
<quote>covered entities</quote>). In 1964 Congress adopted title VI of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> to ensure
that Federal dollars would not be used to subsidize or support programs or
activities that discriminated on racial, color, or national origin grounds. In
the years that followed, Congress extended these protections by enacting laws
barring discrimination in federally funded education activities on the basis of
sex in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and discrimination in
federally funded activities on the basis of age in the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> and
disability in section 504 of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation
Act of 1973</act-name>.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID052A93D2E0524FFEB689B223A290482F"><enum>(3)</enum><text>All of the
statutes cited in this section were designed to confer a benefit on persons
subject to discrimination. As Congress has consistently recognized, effective
enforcement of the statutes and protection of the rights guaranteed under the
statutes depend heavily on the efforts of private attorneys general. Congress
acknowledged that it could not secure compliance solely through administrative
efforts and enforcement actions initiated by the Attorney General. Newman v.
Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (per curiam).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDC2E97C976A274160B36AA428995C7476"><enum>(4)</enum><text>The Supreme Court
has made it clear that individuals suffering discrimination under these
statutes have a private right of action in the Federal courts, and that this is
necessary for effective protection of the law, although Congress did not make
such a right of action explicit in the statute involved. Cannon v. University
of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idB2C56FEE55EB4BDEBD00A23A70045F43"><enum>(5)</enum><text>Furthermore, for
effective enforcement of the statutes cited in this section, it is necessary
that the private right of action include a means to challenge all forms of
discrimination that are prohibited by the statutes, including practices that
have a disparate impact and are not justified as necessary to achieve the
legitimate goals of programs or activities supported by Federal financial
assistance.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID96D90711839048E1A010D06BDE833335"><enum>(6)</enum><text>By reinstating a
private right of action to challenge disparate impact discrimination under
title VI of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of
1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and confirming that right for other
civil rights statutes, Congress is not acting in a manner that would expose
covered entities to unfair findings of discrimination. The legal standard for a
disparate impact claim has never been structured so that a finding of
discrimination could be based on numerical imbalance alone.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID1C7FD56083294430AF0064C88DFB0BFB"><enum>(7)</enum><text>In contrast, a
failure to reinstate or confirm a private right of action would leave
vindication of the rights to equality of opportunity solely to Federal
agencies. Action by Congress to specify a private right of action is necessary
to ensure that persons will have a remedy if they are denied equal access to
education, housing, health, environmental protection, transportation, and many
other programs and services by practices of covered entities that result in
discrimination.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDEAD5383A83DA489A997264B0413ECCE7"><enum>(8)</enum><text>As a result of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandoval, courts have dismissed numerous claims
brought under the regulations promulgated pursuant to title VI of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.) that challenged actions with an unjustified discriminatory
effect. Although the Sandoval Court did not address title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), lower courts have similarly
dismissed claims under such title.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDAFDFAA0346DE4F8E8610A45B9DED6886"><enum>(9)</enum><text>Section 504 of
the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> (29
U.S.C. 794) has received different treatment by the Supreme Court. In Alexander
v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985), the Court proceeded on the assumption that the
statute itself prohibited some actions that had a disparate impact on
handicapped individuals—an assumption borne out by congressional statements
made during passage of the Act. In Sandoval, the Court appeared to accept this
principle of Alexander. Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized
congressional approval of the regulations promulgated to implement section 504
of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> in
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984). Relying on the
validity of the regulations, Congress incorporated the regulations into the
statutory requirements of section 204 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12134). Thus it does not appear at this time that there is a
risk that the private right of action to challenge disparate impact
discrimination under section 504 of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> will become
unavailable.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID38FCA454E3BD4F9F87410F539F49A712"><enum>(10)</enum><text>The right to
maintain a private right of action under a provision added to a statute under
this subtitle will be effectuated by a waiver of sovereign immunity in the same
manner as sovereign immunity is waived under the remaining provisions of that
statute.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID5D4D4C4461C642159AD5F6A747577294"><enum>102.</enum><header>Prohibited
discrimination</header>
<subsection id="ID58607236F77E462FAF21824C5DA79766"><enum>(a)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name></header><text>Section
601 of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>
(42 U.S.C. 2000d) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID1152D209AA4C4FF98F1B481CCE80073D"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>No</quote> and inserting <quote>(a) No</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID14A83060AB9346B1ACF9E9E8B7558557"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by adding at the
end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID6A827962B3634FF8837AF4C15B82EF33" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID73ED5F4B20CC484EB79BD8A8D7D55674"><enum>(b)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID56F694327CDD4085B22C5FFC47C2C1A8"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID8D9E53F48CD84781B5C1F617FCFDD3CE"><enum>(A)</enum><text>Discrimination
(including exclusion from participation and denial of benefits) based on
disparate impact is established under this title only if—</text>
<clause id="ID24FA0B2A7BE74A9EB7384A15BE79C151" indent="up2"><enum>(i)</enum><text>a person aggrieved by discrimination
on the basis of race, color, or national origin (referred to in this title as
an <quote>aggrieved person</quote>) demonstrates that an entity subject to this
title (referred to in this title as a <quote>covered entity</quote>) has a
policy or practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color,
or national origin and the covered entity fails to demonstrate that the
challenged policy or practice is related to and necessary to achieve the
nondiscriminatory goals of the program or activity alleged to have been
operated in a discriminatory manner; or</text>
</clause><clause id="ID895C6D784298475186889D5007D3824B" indent="up2"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>the aggrieved person demonstrates
(consistent with the demonstration required under title VII with respect to an
<quote>alternative employment practice</quote>) that a less discriminatory
alternative policy or practice exists, and the covered entity refuses to adopt
such alternative policy or practice.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDFAACFE632A504064A4F7F7CB4BF98CBC" indent="up2"><enum>(B)</enum><clause commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID79732B8FEF544712B0F9B427A518AD62"><enum>(i)</enum><text>With respect to
demonstrating that a particular policy or practice causes a disparate impact as
described in subparagraph (A)(i), the aggrieved person shall demonstrate that
each particular challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact, except
that if the aggrieved person demonstrates to the court that the elements of a
covered entity’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for
analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as 1 policy or
practice.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID3C1AD1EB03354E0480E25D5E22467B45" indent="up1"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>If the covered entity demonstrates
that a specific policy or practice does not cause the disparate impact, the
covered entity shall not be required to demonstrate that such policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of its program or activity.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID80201CC8ADB84DF0887FC128B12512DB" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>A demonstration that a policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of a program or activity may not be
used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this
title.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID1EAD96A0AFB946AF8685AB96A8148153" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In this subsection, the term
<term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="IDE7849E56454D4114A18B13E2E8001D72"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Education
Amendments of 1972</header><text>Section 901 of the Education Amendments of
1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID42687DDDE96043BD9012A3AC42ADFCF0"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by redesignating
subsection (c) as subsection (e); and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID79BD7455DFA2456695C850BE5D75B0A8"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by inserting
after subsection (b) the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="IDB8C4495082014B80808A73F719407FC4" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID7301CEDDB283466A85F048296200E931"><enum>(c)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDDFBDD0682E78493194E8E0514C9274C9"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID5DD288FEA5CA49138DA3A82C07798EE8"><enum>(A)</enum><text>Subject to the
conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection (a),
discrimination (including exclusion from participation and denial of benefits)
based on disparate impact is established under this title only if—</text>
<clause id="ID2B04EE5AA0EE4199B8C24F60294928D0" indent="up2"><enum>(i)</enum><text>a person aggrieved by discrimination
on the basis of sex (referred to in this title as an <quote>aggrieved
person</quote>) demonstrates that an entity subject to this title (referred to
in this title as a <quote>covered entity</quote>) has a policy or practice that
causes a disparate impact on the basis of sex and the covered entity fails to
demonstrate that the challenged policy or practice is related to and necessary
to achieve the nondiscriminatory goals of the program or activity alleged to
have been operated in a discriminatory manner; or</text>
</clause><clause id="IDFE4C09CCF2134ADA8E31A62A10B8DC21" indent="up2"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>the aggrieved person demonstrates
(consistent with the demonstration required under title VII of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.) with respect to an <quote>alternative employment
practice</quote>) that a less discriminatory alternative policy or practice
exists, and the covered entity refuses to adopt such alternative policy or
practice.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID0BA7AE669CE64390B76B6DE5D3C2699D" indent="up2"><enum>(B)</enum><clause commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDEC899EE5BCF74E56ADA035DC541CC529"><enum>(i)</enum><text>With respect to
demonstrating that a particular policy or practice causes a disparate impact as
described in subparagraph (A)(i), the aggrieved person shall demonstrate that
each particular challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact, except
that if the aggrieved person demonstrates to the court that the elements of a
covered entity’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for
analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as 1 policy or
practice.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID5B2286795BA84D84A5D29C4BEF4178FE" indent="up1"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>If the covered entity demonstrates
that a specific policy or practice does not cause the disparate impact, the
covered entity shall not be required to demonstrate that such policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of its program or activity.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDA6B6722B94694BB1A7239AC4D16A86BE" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>A demonstration that a policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of a program or activity may not be
used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this
title.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDD66CAA488AC14D55A867BFBE48F693F9" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In this subsection, the term
<term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID40632E63514C46839853E816FF5B8368"><enum>(c)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name></header><text>Section 303 of the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 6102) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID880E1EA3BAF641DABE469DBC60087177"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>Pursuant</quote> and inserting <quote>(a) Pursuant</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID78B7472B48744D4E9C244080F9DDA061"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by adding at the
end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID68939D90CA8F4B0BB8483A7566969734" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID9ADCEB1FF60044E3B5EAD6CFCDD86B09"><enum>(b)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDF4329B48D51C4B1CA3F09483174AE9B8"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID761A6FCCFF3B475B8A28A1D921EA0103"><enum>(A)</enum><text>Subject to the
conditions described in subsections (b) and (c) of section 304, discrimination
(including exclusion from participation and denial of benefits) based on
disparate impact is established under this title only if—</text>
<clause id="IDA9FFF3CB7090472283BC1A9FF410C8DB" indent="up2"><enum>(i)</enum><text>a person aggrieved by discrimination
on the basis of age (referred to in this title as an <quote>aggrieved
person</quote>) demonstrates that an entity subject to this title (referred to
in this title as a <quote>covered entity</quote>) has a policy or practice that
causes a disparate impact on the basis of age and the covered entity fails to
demonstrate that the challenged policy or practice is related to and necessary
to achieve the nondiscriminatory goals of the program or activity alleged to
have been operated in a discriminatory manner; or</text>
</clause><clause id="ID9778D4F3C60D4EE0AD2B28D075C6A96C" indent="up2"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>the aggrieved person demonstrates
(consistent with the demonstration required under title VII of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.) with respect to an <quote>alternative employment
practice</quote>) that a less discriminatory alternative policy or practice
exists, and the covered entity refuses to adopt such alternative policy or
practice.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDC758CC692D9E4B74870B50E22267DAC7" indent="up2"><enum>(B)</enum><clause commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID95CB9800E9CA415DBC75EA46CF4FAE41"><enum>(i)</enum><text>With respect to
demonstrating that a particular policy or practice causes a disparate impact as
described in subparagraph (A)(i), the aggrieved person shall demonstrate that
each particular challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact, except
that if the aggrieved person demonstrates to the court that the elements of a
covered entity’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for
analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as 1 policy or
practice.</text>
</clause><clause id="IDF00DC636DB0047D9ADF4144851A279A4" indent="up1"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>If the covered entity demonstrates
that a specific policy or practice does not cause the disparate impact, the
covered entity shall not be required to demonstrate that such policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of its program or activity.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID550A899F472242FD9659164A3CDC9645" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>A demonstration that a policy or
practice is necessary to achieve the goals of a program or activity may not be
used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this
title.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID472E69E638334A8CAB99F0F6DCA1DDF3" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In this subsection, the term
<term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection></section><section id="IDDF984E5DE55845B6917DE979EF862D58"><enum>103.</enum><header>Rights of
action</header>
<subsection id="ID0FEA902A66FE474D84D08E5E99D1A73B"><enum>(a)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name></header><text>Section
602 of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>
(42 U.S.C. 2000d–1) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID2F3F3829879941BCB25DEDFA5DF047CB"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by inserting
<quote>(a)</quote> before <quote>Each Federal department and agency which is
empowered</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID7675667AFEDD4278968230A982F24627"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by adding at the
end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="IDA98A48A831A940D49C6C79C3AA66CF5A" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID9C712122924D4D88B64AE2E463B2381C"><enum>(b)</enum><text>Any person
aggrieved by the failure of a covered entity to comply with this title,
including any regulation promulgated pursuant to this title, may bring a civil
action in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such
person’s
rights.</text>
</subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID51E8743DAECB48AD891A758F76901282"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Education
Amendments of 1972</header><text>Section 902 of the Education Amendments of
1972 (20 U.S.C. 1682) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID7C9ED5582BE44B30AAB886626ACC4132"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by inserting
<quote>(a)</quote> before <quote>Each Federal department and agency which is
empowered</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID605E8E010150436486550C7A7635EC20"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by adding at the
end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID7887F1C21D264F679C183AE274FA78BD" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID4B6BFA6269E8430F94A28F961E0167DD"><enum>(b)</enum><text>Any person
aggrieved by the failure of a covered entity to comply with this title,
including any regulation promulgated pursuant to this title, may bring a civil
action in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such
person’s
rights.</text>
</subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID54082CFE0B3948E79C27B8659E719D0F"><enum>(c)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name></header><text>Section 305(e) of the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 6104(e)) is amended in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
<quote>this Act</quote> and inserting <quote>this title, including a regulation
promulgated to carry out this title,</quote>.</text>
</subsection></section><section id="ID77FC4A6317A94201AA51B9FA7C4A73F7"><enum>104.</enum><header>Right of
recovery</header>
<subsection id="ID1D858B8DFA7D421C8EE491925B93FC58"><enum>(a)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name></header><text>Title
VI of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>
(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 602 the
following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Civil Rights Act of 1964" id="ID35CF5F2CA56147D18AC6CC4C927ED5D1" style="OLC">
<section id="IDED9D035BF429441F991DD7CFB499AF1A"><enum>602A.</enum><header>Actions
brought by aggrieved persons</header>
<subsection id="IDDEAF2F0659264D70BCFF3602A6C147DF"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Claims Based on
Proof of Intentional Discrimination</header><text>In an action brought by an
aggrieved person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged in
unlawful intentional discrimination (not a practice that is unlawful because of
its disparate impact) prohibited under this title (including its implementing
regulations), the aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief
(including compensatory and punitive damages), attorney’s fees (including
expert fees), and costs, except that punitive damages are not available against
a government, government agency, or political subdivision.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID4D0BC7EF577748CAA3F461E3FB45B98E"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Claims Based on
the Disparate Impact Standard of Proof</header><text>In an action brought by an
aggrieved person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged in
unlawful discrimination based on disparate impact prohibited under this title
(including its implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover
equitable relief, attorney’s fees (including expert fees), and
costs.</text>
</subsection></section><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID1C3E63665B864933BA437DE3DB45D555"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Education
Amendments of 1972</header><text>Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
(20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 902 the
following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID6BD669DBDFDC40E9BA30439F0639DF0B" style="OLC">
<section id="ID9E1FD74C19264BB981E41C36F2C4F9AB"><enum>902A.</enum><header>Actions
brought by aggrieved persons</header>
<subsection id="ID010F0605423F404A972D7DF3F066CF7F"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Claims Based on
Proof of Intentional Discrimination</header><text>In an action brought by an
aggrieved person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged in
unlawful intentional discrimination (not a practice that is unlawful because of
its disparate impact) prohibited under this title (including its implementing
regulations), the aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief
(including compensatory and punitive damages), attorney’s fees (including
expert fees), and costs, except that punitive damages are not available against
a government, government agency, or political subdivision.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID76126F1B7B594FCB865924D59218FD17"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Claims Based on
the Disparate Impact Standard of Proof</header><text>In an action brought by an
aggrieved person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged in
unlawful discrimination based on disparate impact prohibited under this title
(including its implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover
equitable relief, attorney’s fees (including expert fees), and
costs.</text>
</subsection></section><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID5B8CB043203246FABEEC543063C0CBAB"><enum>(c)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name></header>
<paragraph id="ID2A0016445B94485F940D8C09590BB9D6"><enum>(1)</enum><header>In
general</header><text>Section 305 of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age
Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6104) is amended by adding at
the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Age Discrimination Act of 1975" id="ID1EA1B026ED164E6486B1AF53E0A719E8" style="OLC">
<subsection id="IDF27CD1C9467F4F9DB9897656FC099CFE"><enum>(g)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID4DCDCF05D83A43EDACDD530480A87BAB"><enum>(1)</enum><text>In an action brought by
an aggrieved person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged
in unlawful intentional discrimination (not a practice that is unlawful because
of its disparate impact) prohibited under this title (including its
implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal
relief (including compensatory and punitive damages), attorney’s fees
(including expert fees), and costs, except that punitive damages are not
available against a government, government agency, or political
subdivision.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID8431CEBEE4DE44329BFDFD38698EA50A" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>In an action brought by an aggrieved
person under this title against a covered entity who has engaged in unlawful
discrimination based on disparate impact prohibited under this title (including
its implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover equitable
relief, attorney’s fees (including expert fees), and
costs.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDACF5052E6C5B4C7F973E5315E70EB20F"><enum>(2)</enum><header>Conformity of
ada with title vi and title ix</header>
<subparagraph id="ID7714C8C201B9427B8F89A543232AC9A3"><enum>(A)</enum><header>Eliminating
waiver of right to fees if not requested in complaint</header><text>Section
305(e)(1) of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6104(e)) is amended—</text>
<clause id="ID4FB25CBCF4AD4BD090324388D2FC28C8"><enum>(i)</enum><text>by
striking <quote>to enjoin a violation</quote> and inserting <quote>to redress a
violation</quote>; and</text>
</clause><clause id="IDFA89789C8EF449C088376462C382554F"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>by
striking the second sentence and inserting the following: <quote>The Court
shall award the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee (including
expert fees), to the prevailing plaintiff.</quote>.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDC09DFD6A05264A26885B4F7D09AAFE55"><enum>(B)</enum><header>Eliminating
unnecessary mandates: to exhaust administrative remedies; and to delay suit
longer than 180 days to obtain agency review</header><text>Section 305(f) of
the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name>
(42 U.S.C. 6104(f)) is amended by striking <quote>With respect to actions
brought for relief based on an alleged violation of the provisions of this
title,</quote> and inserting <quote>Actions brought for relief based on an
alleged violation of the provisions of this title may be initiated in a court
of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to section 305(e), or before the relevant
Federal department or agency. With respect to such actions brought initially
before the relevant Federal department or agency,</quote>.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID4B81D98D20164B449BC0ECE8F652E485"><enum>(C)</enum><header>Eliminating
duplicative <quote>reasonableness</quote> requirement; clarifying that
<quote>reasonable factors other than age</quote> is defense to a disparate
impact claim, not an exception to ada coverage</header><text>Section 304(b)(1)
of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6103(b)(1)) is amended by striking
<quote>involved—</quote> and all that follows through the period and inserting
<quote>involved such action reasonably takes into account age as a factor
necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective
of such program or activity.</quote>.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID035A1D8F6B5B49D9B3CF26AF8DC05FD9"><enum>(d)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name></header><text>Section
504 of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name>
(29 U.S.C. 794) is amended by adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Rehabilitation Act of 1973" id="IDAB2BE82C747E42FDA1FD9A112322EA90" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID24CC6D882F63434C8424D9233C1FB177"><enum>(e)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID7C9A5323330F41AC85F670B79E4AD16D"><enum>(1)</enum><text>In an action brought by
a person aggrieved by discrimination on the basis of disability (referred to in
this section as an <quote>aggrieved person</quote>) under this section against
an entity subject to this section (referred to in this section as a
<quote>covered entity</quote>) who has engaged in unlawful intentional
discrimination (not a practice that is unlawful because of its disparate
impact) prohibited under this section (including its implementing regulations),
the aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief (including
compensatory and punitive damages), attorney’s fees (including expert fees),
and costs, except that punitive damages are not available against a government,
government agency, or political subdivision.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDEC0C7D5411CB42D8A4DD15D06C285561" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>In an action brought by an aggrieved
person under this section against a covered entity who has engaged in unlawful
discrimination based on disparate impact prohibited under this section
(including its implementing regulations), the aggrieved person may recover
equitable relief, attorney’s fees (including expert fees), and
costs.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection></section><section id="ID6A081E632C914089AA695B60AF4AF61E"><enum>105.</enum><header>Construction</header>
<subsection id="ID05503F71F2B94595882350A91C160A64"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Relief</header><text>Nothing
in this subtitle, including any amendment made by this subtitle, shall be
construed to limit the scope of, or the relief available under, section 504 of
the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> (29
U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et
seq.), or any other provision of law.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID5C1754BD66624B6FAC18F5769F2832ED"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Defendants</header><text>Nothing
in this subtitle, including any amendment made by this subtitle, shall be
construed to limit the scope of the class of persons who may be subjected to
civil actions under the covered civil rights provisions.</text>
</subsection></section><section id="ID7CD0554E721F4C86BFB86AAAE151A41B"><enum>106.</enum><header>Effective
date</header>
<subsection id="ID19C08E43BCC64F1B959777997230E96A"><enum>(a)</enum><header>In
General</header><text>This subtitle, and the amendments made by this subtitle,
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID6D4389930BE04334AF9B41960D2A7C9C"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Application</header><text>This
subtitle, and the amendments made by this subtitle, apply to all actions or
proceedings pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.</text>
</subsection></section></subtitle><subtitle id="IDEF657A1857164062AF84F03347D70C69"><enum>B</enum><header>Harassment</header>
<section id="ID66A898CFC6DA4ED0B5DA990A2706F576"><enum>111.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="ID715DC4483EA640EB8C8D9C451244ACE9"><enum>(1)</enum><text>As the Supreme
Court has held, covered entities are liable for harassment on the basis of sex
under their education programs and activities under title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) (referred to in this subtitle as
<quote>title IX</quote>). Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S.
60, 75 (1992) (damages remedy available for harassment of student by a teacher
coach); Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 633 (1999)
(authorizing damages action against school board for student-on-student sexual
harassment).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDFFB6F24C0D00426EAB91529DFA0C6529"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Courts have
confirmed that covered entities are liable for harassment on the basis of race,
color, or national origin under title VI of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 2000d et
seq.) (referred to in this subtitle as <quote>title VI</quote>), e.g., Bryant
v. Independent School District No. I–38, 334 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2003)
(liability for student-on-student racial harassment). Moreover, judicial
interpretation of the similarly worded <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age
Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) and section 504
of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> (29
U.S.C. 794) has tracked that of title VI and title IX.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID62F633C700894796855388735F683C4B"><enum>(3)</enum><text>As these courts
have properly recognized, harassment on a prohibited basis under a program or
activity, whether perpetrated by employees or agents of the program or
activity, by peers of the victim, or by others who conduct harassment under the
program or activity, is a form of unlawful and intentional discrimination that
inflicts substantial harm on beneficiaries of the program or activity and
violates the obligation of a covered entity to maintain a nondiscriminatory
environment.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID3CE8282D5585416AAF4C06A7634BBC7F"><enum>(4)</enum><text>In a 5 to 4
ruling, the Supreme Court held that students subjected to sexual harassment may
receive a damages remedy under title IX only when school officials have
<quote>actual notice</quote> of the harassment and are <quote>deliberately
indifferent</quote> to it. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District,
524 U.S. 274 (1998). See also Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526
U.S. 629 (1999).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDFE3CBEE192FE411FBF0EBBD40BC7AE4D"><enum>(5)</enum><text>The standard
delineated in Gebser and followed in Davis has been applied by lower courts
regarding the liability of covered entities for damages for harassment based on
race, color, or national origin under title VI. E.g., Bryant v. Independent
School District No. I–38, 334 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2003). Because of the
similarities in the wording and interpretation of the underlying statutes, this
standard may be applied to claims for damages brought under the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) and section 504 of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name> (29 U.S.C. 794) as
well.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9B6DC6C626D04D32991EDE8304A6EF57"><enum>(6)</enum><text>Although they do
not affect the relevant standards for individuals to obtain injunctive and
equitable relief for harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, national
origin, age, or disability under covered programs and activities, Gebser and
its progeny severely limit the availability of remedies for such individuals by
imposing new, more stringent standards for recovery of damages under title VI
and title IX, and potentially under the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age
Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name> and section 504 of the
<act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name>. Yet in
many cases, damages are the only remedy that would effectively rectify past
harassment.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID255B6C58B9C749EAAD697FA9580933F9"><enum>(7)</enum><text>As recognized by
the dissenters in Gebser, these limitations on effective relief thwart
Congress’s underlying purpose to protect students from harassment.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID5541C6804646415F8612C0A6995EC14E"><enum>(8)</enum><text>The rulings in
Gebser and its progeny create an incentive for covered entities to insulate
themselves from knowledge of harassment on the basis of race, color, sex,
national origin, age, or disability rather than adopting and enforcing
practices that will minimize the danger of such harassment. The rulings thus
undermine the purpose of prohibitions on discrimination in the civil rights
laws: <quote>to induce [covered programs or activities] to adopt and enforce
practices that will minimize the danger that vulnerable students [or other
beneficiaries] will be exposed to such odious behavior</quote>. Gebser, 524
U.S. at 300 (Stevens, J., dissenting).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID18BE388D717943AC8D14AE3B9D64EFDD"><enum>(9)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="idEA25E335D9154EF09071E24B1FE80152"><enum>(A)</enum><text>Legislative action is
necessary and appropriate to reverse Gebser and its progeny and restore the
availability of a full range of remedies for harassment based on race, color,
sex, national origin, age, or disability.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID2D8336ABAA5A48E4A7D21F4B0F3943DD" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><text>Restoring the availability of a full
range of remedies for harassment will—</text>
<clause id="ID6197DDE8F322467A8683055EF0602AEE"><enum>(i)</enum><text>ensure that students and other
beneficiaries of federally funded programs and activities have protection from
harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or
disability that is comparable in strength and effectiveness to that available
to employees under title VII of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil
Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), and title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.);</text>
</clause><clause id="ID22423E07EDF14499AD71D987D4BB13B6"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>encourage covered entities to
adopt and enforce meaningful policies and procedures to prevent and remedy
harassment;</text>
</clause><clause id="ID76871212F3524C1087350838B6C14A2E"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>deter incidents of harassment;
and</text>
</clause><clause id="ID419FE1FE7C2E470FB8CA4E8E534ABEA7"><enum>(iv)</enum><text>provide appropriate remedies for
discrimination.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDA2B7AB1B76FC4B00A7DFE6B02A648955"><enum>(10)</enum><text>Congress has the
same affirmative powers to enact legislation restoring the availability of a
full range of remedies for harassment as it did to enact the underlying
statutory prohibitions on harassment, including powers under section 5 of the
14th amendment and section 8 of article I of the Constitution.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID3B6466DCF87C4886A167184094586F38"><enum>(11)</enum><text>The right to
maintain a private right of action under a provision added to a statute under
this subtitle will be effectuated by a waiver of sovereign immunity in the same
manner as sovereign immunity is waived under the remaining provisions of that
statute.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="IDFFC7230FB0684EFA8EFEF3536636DCE2"><enum>112.</enum><header>Right of
recovery</header>
<subsection id="IDD78479EB7C804922B5A90EABC0A3BCA3"><enum>(a)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name></header><text>Section
602A of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of
1964</act-name>, as added by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the
following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Civil Rights Act of 1964" id="ID9D36F18FC62A4CBE9506CEF35A23E1C2" style="OLC">
<subsection id="IDA15FC26C768A487BABD863AF6273C1CE"><enum>(c)</enum><header>Claims Based on
Harassment</header>
<paragraph id="ID281E698DF19E4822916EDA41A389F4CA"><enum>(1)</enum><header>Right of
recovery</header><text>In an action brought against a covered entity by
(including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who has been subjected to unlawful
harassment under a program or activity, the aggrieved person may recover
equitable and legal relief (including compensatory and punitive damages subject
to the provisions of paragraph (2)), attorney’s fees (including expert fees),
and costs.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDE2729F2B88B7430687ACD6D4F435EA8C"><enum>(2)</enum><header>Availability of
damages</header>
<subparagraph id="IDF8EFCCEBA335467E86502C4F9790C264"><enum>(A)</enum><header>Tangible action
by agent or employee</header><text>If an agent or employee of a covered entity
engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results in a
tangible action to the aggrieved person, damages shall be available against the
covered entity.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID2A8E1E3C86D045F79055C9B4CA92DFE8"><enum>(B)</enum><header>No tangible
action by agent or employee</header><text>If an agent or employee of a covered
entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results
in no tangible action to the aggrieved person, no damages shall be available
against the covered entity if it can demonstrate that—</text>
<clause id="IDF204BC0D332447F4A1A266B21EDCF159"><enum>(i)</enum><text>it exercised
reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on race,
color, or national origin; and</text>
</clause><clause id="IDCA2A3831CE1849ECA54EB4EFE72C2FD2"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>the aggrieved
person unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective
opportunities offered by the covered entity that—</text>
<subclause id="ID970AF04C9B4D49D9B73283A9E3D4AA9B"><enum>(I)</enum><text>would likely have
provided redress and avoided the harm described by the aggrieved person;
and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="IDCF0374DBB7FC47F2BC61AF1BFE80A815"><enum>(II)</enum><text>would not have
exposed the aggrieved person to undue risk, effort, or expense.</text>
</subclause></clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDC14D91E4E06B448BA81EB346F5F61791"><enum>(C)</enum><header>Harassment by
third party</header><text>If a person who is not an agent or employee of a
covered entity subjects an aggrieved person to unlawful harassment under a
program or activity, and the covered entity involved knew or should have known
of the harassment, no damages shall be available against the covered entity if
it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct
promptly any harassment based on race, color, or national origin.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID60EE5BB1719745819D3EDD00C0EF58FA"><enum>(D)</enum><header>Demonstration</header><text>For
purposes of subparagraphs (B) and (C), a showing that the covered entity has
exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment based
on race, color, or national origin includes a demonstration by the covered
entity that it has—</text>
<clause id="ID85BBE8D025174537B8F834E6443D269A"><enum>(i)</enum><text>established,
adequately publicized, and enforced an effective, comprehensive, harassment
prevention policy and complaint procedure that is likely to provide redress and
avoid harm without exposing the person subjected to the harassment to undue
risk, effort, or expense;</text>
</clause><clause id="ID59F8403D78F84DAA8DF3AB1BBA9BA08B"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>undertaken
prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations pursuant to its complaint
procedure; and</text>
</clause><clause id="IDC9F1DFD8233F4AC39B90D8664C80C71B"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>taken immediate
and appropriate corrective action designed to stop harassment that has
occurred, correct its effects on the aggrieved person, and ensure that the
harassment does not recur.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDE7ACFBD669DE43AC8BFF9C71B72BE99A"><enum>(E)</enum><header>Punitive
damages</header><text>Punitive damages shall not be available under this
subsection against a government, government agency, or political
subdivision.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDF1B6119270E34E3DB7C5D1918D516C43"><enum>(3)</enum><header>Definitions</header><text>As
used in this subsection:</text>
<subparagraph id="ID0B3F638948E94359B69ACE135C1BFD04"><enum>(A)</enum><header>Demonstrates</header><text>The
term <term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDDCF4E9E9AFAB4E63B8292E08438170E7"><enum>(B)</enum><header>Tangible
action</header><text>The term <term>tangible action</term> means—</text>
<clause id="IDAF3F364F3CF84C98A487D091ECB34194"><enum>(i)</enum><text>a
significant adverse change in an individual’s status caused by an agent or
employee of a covered entity with regard to the individual’s participation in,
access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a program or activity; or</text>
</clause><clause id="ID875E66D15D2A4C18A0696C65594A32F8"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>an explicit or
implicit condition by an agent or employee of a covered entity on an
individual’s participation in, access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a
program or activity based on the individual’s submission to the
harassment.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID5DBD179F65A149AAA18B6494B458A987"><enum>(C)</enum><header>Unlawful
harassment</header><text>The term <term>unlawful harassment</term> means
harassment that is unlawful under this
title.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID14B58EC78A564A6783A36D1BE2B8A12E"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Education
Amendments of 1972</header><text>Section 902A of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>, as added
by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Civil Rights Act of 1964" id="ID6D21BC63D8AD4C66A5EFE0AD6251A131" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID5E5D3331DA9B4CB0A370532AEC7232AC"><enum>(c)</enum><header>Claims Based on
Harassment</header>
<paragraph id="ID2124165CBBA84316BD36ED8E78828091"><enum>(1)</enum><header>Right of
recovery</header><text>In an action brought against a covered entity by
(including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who has been subjected to unlawful
harassment under a program or activity, the aggrieved person may recover
equitable and legal relief (including compensatory and punitive damages subject
to the provisions of paragraph (2)), attorney’s fees (including expert fees),
and costs.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID0BA2C0D7D8494EAB966B4B1F1CA17716"><enum>(2)</enum><header>Availability of
damages</header>
<subparagraph id="IDE87C2048BA2A42C89122E44C362801F1"><enum>(A)</enum><header>Tangible action
by agent or employee</header><text>If an agent or employee of a covered entity
engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results in a
tangible action to the aggrieved person, damages shall be available against the
covered entity.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDCC2ADBC0C27547BE83DCAE64722276C3"><enum>(B)</enum><header>No tangible
action by agent or employee</header><text>If an agent or employee of a covered
entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results
in no tangible action to the aggrieved person, no damages shall be available
against the covered entity if it can demonstrate that—</text>
<clause id="ID45B368BCAB08421F8C41FD27C52189B4"><enum>(i)</enum><text>it exercised
reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on sex;
and</text>
</clause><clause id="ID99A1B3E945004A86A1738CD52D3F8123"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>the aggrieved
person unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective
opportunities offered by the covered entity that—</text>
<subclause id="ID9204E2DA07E149B1B28A2973C7D65939"><enum>(I)</enum><text>would likely have
provided redress and avoided the harm described by the aggrieved person;
and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="IDCE6D1B8F3EF34FDCB79CDF8AC3269A87"><enum>(II)</enum><text>would not have
exposed the aggrieved person to undue risk, effort, or expense.</text>
</subclause></clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID3C8791A8701B484884367110205368E0"><enum>(C)</enum><header>Harassment by
third party</header><text>If a person who is not an agent or employee of a
covered entity subjects an aggrieved person to unlawful harassment under a
program or activity, and the covered entity knew or should have known of the
harassment, no damages shall be available against the covered entity if it can
demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly
any harassment based on sex.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDFDC6BA1B753249E6939A18B229E2CE6E"><enum>(D)</enum><header>Demonstration</header><text>For
purposes of subparagraphs (B) and (C), a showing that the covered entity has
exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment based
on sex includes a demonstration by the covered entity that it has—</text>
<clause id="ID37212ED501F44EDF8BB200CBE7781A91"><enum>(i)</enum><text>established,
adequately publicized, and enforced an effective, comprehensive, harassment
prevention policy and complaint procedure that is likely to provide redress and
avoid harm without exposing the person subjected to the harassment to undue
risk, effort, or expense;</text>
</clause><clause id="IDC4E76EE0C14240AAA77255FEA70B9B51"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>undertaken
prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations pursuant to its complaint
procedure; and</text>
</clause><clause id="ID851294DB43974EE7B3A4A331826AA880"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>taken immediate
and appropriate corrective action designed to stop harassment that has
occurred, correct its effects on the aggrieved person, and ensure that the
harassment does not recur.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID615EF4171AF442C787F106AB5508DFB7"><enum>(E)</enum><header>Punitive
damages</header><text>Punitive damages shall not be available under this
subsection against a government, government agency, or political
subdivision.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID8FE7602BCD74465DA074CB49705303DD"><enum>(3)</enum><header>Definitions</header><text>As
used in this subsection:</text>
<subparagraph id="ID5C33D43ECD794E3591ECF9853A66E2AA"><enum>(A)</enum><header>Demonstrates</header><text>The
term <term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID16DDF07B28B64042B8BEF8636D21C484"><enum>(B)</enum><header>Tangible
action</header><text>The term <term>tangible action</term> means—</text>
<clause id="ID8FBA1DE205A8464AAA3C8244AEBC5768"><enum>(i)</enum><text>a
significant adverse change in an individual’s status caused by an agent or
employee of a covered entity with regard to the individual’s participation in,
access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a program or activity; or</text>
</clause><clause id="ID1C4E08CF4E1C48C8AD1FE5F4ACC48BE0"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>an explicit or
implicit condition by an agent or employee of a covered entity on an
individual’s participation in, access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a
program or activity based on the individual’s submission to the
harassment.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDCF839786B0104246B79C9B6F45E2FE04"><enum>(C)</enum><header>Unlawful
harassment</header><text>The term <term>unlawful harassment</term> means
harassment that is unlawful under this
title.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID979937240F4942F8965AC3026F11A69F"><enum>(c)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name></header><text>Section 305(g) of the
<act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of 1975</act-name>, as
added by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Age Discrimination Act of 1975" id="IDAB813F890AC243CB9927D53BFA5B59D1" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="ID25111C4A18A24B2184D4365734AEC3F5" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID9DA19B422CB04C869AE78D29A61CD5D2"><enum>(A)</enum><text>If an action brought
against a covered entity by (including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who
has been subjected to unlawful harassment under a program or activity, the
aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief (including compensatory
and punitive damages subject to the provisions of subparagraph (B)), attorney’s
fees (including expert fees), and costs.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID39D92864BA014833ADB2259B4B253DFA" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><clause commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID5EA836BEE12F4EF0B58B33280957728D"><enum>(i)</enum><text>If an agent or employee
of a covered entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity
that results in a tangible action to the aggrieved person, damages shall be
available against the covered entity.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID5DEA47AECF33490FB10484A1EC60AE06" indent="up1"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>If an agent or employee of a covered
entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results
in no tangible action to the aggrieved person, no damages shall be available
against the covered entity if it can demonstrate that—</text>
<subclause id="ID90E5CCEEFBDD45E4BD0F1B78537AE65D"><enum>(I)</enum><text>it exercised reasonable care to
prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on age; and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="ID0C86736830E3479F9610375BE5230797"><enum>(II)</enum><text>the aggrieved person unreasonably
failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities offered by
the covered entity that—</text>
<item id="IDB0725DEB6E1F470F9C024DECAEF56035"><enum>(aa)</enum><text>would likely have provided redress
and avoided the harm described by the aggrieved person; and</text>
</item><item id="ID0CCF72554EBC4ACB8EE6AA3A939606C4"><enum>(bb)</enum><text>would not have exposed the
aggrieved person to undue risk, effort, or expense.</text>
</item></subclause></clause><clause id="IDAEF0450F05014BD59207CDB98A057972" indent="up1"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>If a person who is not an agent or
employee of a covered entity subjects an aggrieved person to unlawful
harassment under a program or activity, and the covered entity knew or should
have known of the harassment, no damages shall be available against the covered
entity if it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and
correct promptly any harassment based on age.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID9A759FB5568C426CAFB7CEDB0CB6CBED" indent="up1"><enum>(iv)</enum><text>For purposes of clauses (ii) and
(iii), a showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to
prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on age includes a
demonstration by the covered entity that it has—</text>
<subclause id="IDBA5334EB5EB84275951714ECA3E1E9FA"><enum>(I)</enum><text>established, adequately publicized,
and enforced an effective, comprehensive, harassment prevention policy and
complaint procedure that is likely to provide redress and avoid harm without
exposing the person subjected to the harassment to undue risk, effort, or
expense;</text>
</subclause><subclause id="ID3B4B9934738F41EB910F4653662E2FA0"><enum>(II)</enum><text>undertaken prompt, thorough, and
impartial investigations pursuant to its complaint procedure; and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="ID3BE45B09E2874941B24895AE2CAAE069"><enum>(III)</enum><text>taken immediate and appropriate
corrective action designed to stop harassment that has occurred, correct its
effects on the aggrieved person, and ensure that the harassment does not
recur.</text>
</subclause></clause><clause id="ID6C1CAF5BB4CA4E2387F03DA7A8F2AE28" indent="up1"><enum>(v)</enum><text>Punitive damages shall not be
available under this paragraph against a government, government agency, or
political subdivision.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDC115D5257F574A869293C0C837F39233" indent="up1"><enum>(C)</enum><text>As used in this paragraph:</text>
<clause id="ID624B32347E42448E9E12A937AFF1F0A9"><enum>(i)</enum><text>The term <term>demonstrates</term>
means meets the burdens of production and persuasion.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID19155DD9885F47F48E7CF2A05FA36CEF"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>The term <term>tangible action</term>
means—</text>
<subclause id="ID0ACDE238FAD544BF8234FF8A2EBA56AA"><enum>(I)</enum><text>a significant adverse change in an
individual’s status caused by an agent or employee of a covered entity with
regard to the individual’s participation in, access to, or enjoyment of, the
benefits of a program or activity; or</text>
</subclause><subclause id="IDBFD4CE51FD2F45E0A2662784E06544F8"><enum>(II)</enum><text>an explicit or implicit condition
by an agent or employee of a covered entity on an individual’s participation
in, access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a program or activity based on
the individual’s submission to the harassment.</text>
</subclause></clause><clause id="ID8B3DDEAAE1A24B758D6CACC74CCF82CB"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>The term <term>unlawful
harassment</term> means harassment that is unlawful under this
title.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID5F2FF7F6CC8A40D7A68E956328633EBD"><enum>(d)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name></header><text>Section
504(e) of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of
1973</act-name>, as added by section 104, is amended by adding at the end the
following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Rehabilitation Act of 1973" id="ID5753680E618845578B9442AA9603C6DA" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="IDE4513C92DC50406287CBA68032B38C05" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID7AD0F7C78FE04024B5BFB0907810C23B"><enum>(A)</enum><text>In an action brought
against a covered entity by (including on behalf of) an aggrieved person who
has been subjected to unlawful harassment under a program or activity, the
aggrieved person may recover equitable and legal relief (including compensatory
and punitive damages subject to the provisions of subparagraph (B)), attorney’s
fees (including expert fees), and costs.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID9A8FF758B22A4AA2A79400EAE97AE643" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><clause commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID46E5F005799B4CA9BFC9D09F00DE2916"><enum>(i)</enum><text>If an agent or employee
of a covered entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity
that results in a tangible action to the aggrieved person, damages shall be
available against the covered entity.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID912BEB0C3FC84506A0AE3B89AFB303B4" indent="up1"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>If an agent or employee of a covered
entity engages in unlawful harassment under a program or activity that results
in no tangible action to the aggrieved person, no damages shall be available
against the covered entity if it can demonstrate that—</text>
<subclause id="IDEED71D09E45B442EA486CF21834C148F"><enum>(I)</enum><text>it exercised reasonable care to
prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on disability; and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="IDEEBCEF3A3BCA4C6A98173394F6EA23BA"><enum>(II)</enum><text>the aggrieved person unreasonably
failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities offered by
the covered entity that—</text>
<item id="IDD5632DF71C9A4E43873EEBD24D7796CE"><enum>(aa)</enum><text>would likely have provided redress
and avoided the harm described by the aggrieved person; and</text>
</item><item id="ID0DB91FBD3BE145F9B0D3016D3F47A2DF"><enum>(bb)</enum><text>would not have exposed the
aggrieved person to undue risk, effort, or expense.</text>
</item></subclause></clause><clause id="ID47EA19C168A44581AA0CF21E0519C929" indent="up1"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>If a person who is not an agent or
employee of a covered entity subjects an aggrieved person to unlawful
harassment under a program or activity, and the covered entity knew or should
have known of the harassment, no damages shall be available against the covered
entity if it can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and
correct promptly any harassment based on disability.</text>
</clause><clause id="IDD3E9C2A9D3854AAC85498E5218D26A5D" indent="up1"><enum>(iv)</enum><text>For purposes of clauses (ii) and
(iii), a showing that the covered entity has exercised reasonable care to
prevent and correct promptly any harassment based on disability includes a
demonstration by the covered entity that it has—</text>
<subclause id="IDA521897E7FDB4057B223F6DBC6F28BA2"><enum>(I)</enum><text>established, adequately publicized,
and enforced an effective, comprehensive, harassment prevention policy and
complaint procedure that is likely to provide redress and avoid harm without
exposing the person subjected to the harassment to undue risk, effort, or
expense;</text>
</subclause><subclause id="ID6FC4A228C12C493BB6FC488FE2EF3175"><enum>(II)</enum><text>undertaken prompt, thorough, and
impartial investigations pursuant to its complaint procedure; and</text>
</subclause><subclause id="ID26F2F1B72FBD454884C524391BC93816"><enum>(III)</enum><text>taken immediate and appropriate
corrective action designed to stop harassment that has occurred, correct its
effects on the aggrieved person, and ensure that the harassment does not
recur.</text>
</subclause></clause><clause id="IDCB5DB3BB3BC2410489AE451E7503BD1D" indent="up1"><enum>(v)</enum><text>Punitive damages shall not be
available under this paragraph against a government, government agency, or
political subdivision.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDD31BD700310C49E09B27849088294355" indent="up1"><enum>(C)</enum><text>As used in this paragraph:</text>
<clause id="IDFF77870028D7434EB75DB8DEB55FD9D5"><enum>(i)</enum><text>The term <term>demonstrates</term>
means meets the burdens of production and persuasion.</text>
</clause><clause id="ID57D82003E5184550874B57C5531CC728"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>The term <term>tangible action</term>
means—</text>
<subclause id="IDD2F81D3C49944C34959F896263EFD11B"><enum>(I)</enum><text>a significant adverse change in an
individual’s status caused by an agent or employee of a covered entity with
regard to the individual’s participation in, access to, or enjoyment of, the
benefits of a program or activity; or</text>
</subclause><subclause id="IDE701655048DB4EB7872E1CD48AFB421B"><enum>(II)</enum><text>an explicit or implicit condition
by an agent or employee of a covered entity on an individual’s participation
in, access to, or enjoyment of, the benefits of a program or activity based on
the individual’s submission to the harassment.</text>
</subclause></clause><clause id="IDE053858A806B4FA0AB3B89E9272A77C3"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>The term <term>unlawful
harassment</term> means harassment that is unlawful under this
section.</text>
</clause></subparagraph></paragraph><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection></section><section id="IDFAD0673281D547168ADD9C0219D1CB1B"><enum>113.</enum><header>Construction</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Nothing in this subtitle, including any
amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed to limit the scope of the
class of persons who may be subjected to civil actions under the covered civil
rights provisions.</text>
</section><section id="ID157212F4E8754C1F9EA0D4E925A1FF49"><enum>114.</enum><header>Effective
date</header>
<subsection id="ID619A5629946A454D8E03B2575D5A4877"><enum>(a)</enum><header>In
General</header><text>This subtitle, and the amendments made by this subtitle,
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="IDDBFB8DAF0B544D1482C7D29EA7F881F2"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Application</header><text>This
subtitle, and the amendments made by this subtitle, apply to all actions or
proceedings pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.</text>
</subsection></section></subtitle><enum>II</enum><header>EMPLOYER
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE</header>
<section id="id578AC2F7B1944980868A11F80F63D138"><enum>201.</enum><header>Amendment to
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994</header>
<subsection id="id48FC569AF01B4F16B7AF3C7F1CEB02DD"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Findings</header><text>Congress
makes the following findings:</text>
<paragraph id="id7AB63A3E2C4B4A6A82205A3B2A9F9958"><enum>(1)</enum><text>The Federal
Government has an important interest in attracting and training a military to
provide for the National defense. The Constitution grants Congress the power to
raise and support an army for purposes of the common defense. The Nation’s
military readiness requires that all members of the Armed Forces, including
those employed in State programs and activities, be able to serve without
jeopardizing their civilian employment opportunities.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="id86134E757A514A76A38E88E0D3554F2C"><enum>(2)</enum><text>The Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, commonly referred to
as <quote>USERRA</quote> and codified as chapter 43 of title 38, United States
Code, is intended to safeguard the reemployment rights of members of the
uniformed services (as that term is defined in section 4303(16) of title 38,
United States Code) and to prevent discrimination against any person who is a
member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has performed, applies to
perform, or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service.
Effective enforcement of the Act depends on the ability of private individuals
to enforce its provisions in court.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idE2CEECF30AD142F9B3E9CA50C5083728"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In Seminole Tribe
of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the Supreme Court held that
congressional legislation, enacted pursuant to the portion of section 8 of
article I of the Constitution relating to regulation of Commerce among the
several States, cannot abrogate the immunity of States under the 11th amendment
to the Constitution. Some courts have interpreted Seminole Tribe of Florida v.
Florida as a basis for denying relief to persons affected by a State violation
of USERRA. In addition, in Alden v. Maine 527 U.S. 706, 712 (1999), the Supreme
Court held that this immunity also prohibits the Federal Government from
subjecting <quote>non-consenting states to private suits for damages in state
courts.</quote> As a result, although USERRA specifically provides that a
person may commence an action for relief against a State for its violation of
that Act, persons harmed by State violations of that Act lack important
remedies to vindicate the rights and benefits that are available to all other
persons covered by that Act. Unless a State chooses to waive sovereign
immunity, or the Attorney General brings an action on their behalf, persons
affected by State violations of USERRA may have no adequate Federal remedy for
such violations.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="id6D9EC93FB83F4046A44A7330E42F7E17"><enum>(4)</enum><text>A failure to
provide a private right of action by persons affected by State violations of
USERRA would leave vindication of their rights and benefits under that Act
solely to Federal agencies, which may fail to take necessary and appropriate
action because of administrative overburden or other reasons. Action by
Congress to specify such a private right of action ensures that persons
affected by State violations of USERRA have a remedy if they are denied their
rights and benefits under that Act.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="idDF06B4D662EF4B088077C2A8B1937AA1"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Clarification
of Right of Action Under USERRA</header><text>Section 4323 of title 38, United
States Code, is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="idDD3E3CECE2A24C058BE1B1843306BEFB"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in subsection
(b), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph
(2):</text>
<quoted-block id="id775503D2B07B4B7D841D0620A919E7AC" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="id0287307303554163BB41C16E6628882F" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>In the case of an action against a
State (as an employer) by a person, the action may be brought in a district
court of the United States or State court of competent
jurisdiction.</text>
</paragraph><after-quoted-block>;</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idB9923A294C6942128D1B1F8520984611"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by redesignating
subsection (j) as subsection (k); and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idC647CD84DEA64A02BEA0CFB29DBEFE8D"><enum>(3)</enum><text>by inserting
after subsection (i) the following new subsection (j):</text>
<quoted-block display-inline="no-display-inline" id="idD26838F4F7F549EA9A16E7567EC9E88A" style="OLC">
<subsection id="idE4F89C6323C0464F84E754CC8E605706"><enum>(j)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="id0B08FF0F5ECD4FE3AA5456BC6395DAE3"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="id6C94A009CEB44B76AF7589D9B3B5DB05"><enum>(A)</enum><text>A State’s receipt or
use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State
shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th amendment to
the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee of that program
or activity under this chapter for the rights or benefits authorized the
employee by this chapter.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="idC79596C44C004D56979A79704941467C" indent="up2"><enum>(B)</enum><text>In this paragraph, the term
<term>program or activity</term> has the meaning given the term in section 309
of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6107).</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="no-display-inline" id="id41C284DE32FB4179B6BE78AB95146531" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>An official of a State may be sued in
the official capacity of the official by any person covered by paragraph (1)
who seeks injunctive relief against a State (as an employer) under subsection
(e). In such a suit the court may award to the prevailing party those costs
authorized by section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1988).</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</paragraph></subsection></section><enum>III</enum><header>EMPLOYER
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION</header>
<section id="ID2A64D917C9FF46639CE4CB094178105C"><enum>301.</enum><header>Short
title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This title may be cited
as the <quote>Older Workers’ Rights Restoration Act of 2008</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="ID2A764F53FE2F407CB8A68D250DF20475"><enum>302.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="ID5B1B6DB8851140C2BCB51BB44F0D06B1"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="id98637A55D75944EAB3E883342E072E94"><enum>(A)</enum><text>Age discrimination in
employment remains a serious problem both nationally and among State agencies,
and has invidious effects on its victims, the labor force, and the economy as a
whole.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="id7C1F1AB420E14B9DB2A521661502F556" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><text>For example, age discrimination in
employment—</text>
<clause id="ID1BEC060471C74E40A80F5EBAEC0E4B05"><enum>(i)</enum><text>increases the risk of unemployment
among older workers, who will as a result be more likely to be dependent on
government resources;</text>
</clause><clause id="ID3CC3C5819EEE445CA4365D5A0ED8C420"><enum>(ii)</enum><text>prevents the best use of available
labor resources;</text>
</clause><clause id="IDE592E78671D94AC6B732353B815E401E"><enum>(iii)</enum><text>adversely affects the morale and
productivity of older workers; and</text>
</clause><clause id="ID3FDD9D4789D94C38BFD4C3684296F352"><enum>(iv)</enum><text>perpetuates unwarranted
stereotypes about the abilities of older workers.</text>
</clause></subparagraph><subparagraph id="idD4F161586E7648E98D885CED4C790858" indent="up1"><enum>(C)</enum><text>As a result, the Federal Government
has an important interest in ensuring that Federal financial assistance is not
used to subsidize or facilitate violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (referred to in this section as
the <quote>ADEA</quote>).</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID7470A3685A764B1BB1600B49488FB9E4"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Private civil
suits by the victims of employment discrimination have been a crucial tool for
enforcement of the ADEA since the enactment of that Act. In Kimel v. Florida
Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), however, the Supreme Court held that
Congress had not abrogated State sovereign immunity to suits by individuals
under the ADEA.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID8F39CB40A61249DE8D262BCF3E939E23"><enum>(3)</enum><text>As a result of
the Kimel decision, although age-based discrimination by State employers
remains unlawful, the victims of such discrimination lack important remedies
for vindication of their rights that are available to all other employees
covered under that Act, including employees in the private sector, local
government, and the Federal Government. In the absence of the deterrent effect
that such remedies provide, there is a greater likelihood that entities
carrying out programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance
will use that assistance to violate that Act, or that the assistance will
otherwise subsidize or facilitate violations of that Act.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDDD84A86EB4384BF0B3D99436CEB54685"><enum>(4)</enum><text>The Supreme Court
has upheld Congress’s authority to condition receipt of Federal financial
assistance on acceptance by the States or other covered entities of conditions
regarding or related to the use of that assistance, as in Cannon v. University
of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). The Court has further recognized that Congress
may require a State, as a condition of receipt of Federal financial assistance,
to waive the State’s sovereign immunity to suits for a violation of Federal
law, as in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education
Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999). In the wake of the Kimel decision, in order
to assure compliance with, and to provide effective remedies for violations of,
the ADEA in State programs or activities receiving or using Federal financial
assistance, and in order to ensure that Federal financial assistance does not
subsidize or facilitate violations of the ADEA, it is necessary to require such
a waiver as a condition of receipt or use of that assistance.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID945476C0EBBF469BACF128180473E724"><enum>(5)</enum><text>A State’s receipt
or use of Federal financial assistance in any program or activity of a State
will constitute a limited waiver of sovereign immunity under section 7(g) of
the ADEA (as added by section 304). The waiver will not eliminate a State’s
immunity with respect to programs or activities that do not receive or use
Federal financial assistance. The State will waive sovereign immunity only with
respect to suits under the ADEA brought by employees within the programs or
activities that receive or use that assistance. With regard to those programs
and activities that are covered by the waiver, the State employees will be
accorded only the same remedies that are accorded to other covered employees
under the ADEA.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID93CF6AA2B4D3445DBB4AB0B0C26B878A"><enum>(6)</enum><text>The Supreme Court
has repeatedly held that State sovereign immunity does not bar suits for
prospective injunctive relief brought against State officials, as in Ex parte
Young (209 U.S. 123 (1908)). Clarification of the language of the ADEA will
confirm that Act authorizes such suits. The injunctive relief available in such
suits will continue to be no broader than the injunctive relief that was
available under that Act before the Kimel decision, and that is available to
all other employees under that Act.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID099FE23524D84BEDA441A0C1FA2B1B03"><enum>(7)</enum><text>In 1991, Congress
reaffirmed that title VII of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights
Act of 1964</act-name> permits victims of employment bias to state a cause of
action for disparate impact discrimination when it added a provision to title
VII of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>
to clarify the burden of proof in disparate impact cases in section 703(k) of
the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 2000e–2(k)).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDC85130F410D74895A8880342E7AE4444"><enum>(8)</enum><text>In Smith v. City
of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the ADEA permits
older workers to state a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination.
The Smith Court incorrectly held, however, that the scope of disparate impact
claims is narrower under the ADEA than under title VII. Congress did not intend
the ADEA to be interpreted to provide older workers less protections against
discrimination than those protected under title VII of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>. As a
result, it is necessary to clarify the burden of proof in a disparate impact
case under the ADEA.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID89B58E22E5DA41FF8A77E2A30ECE5967"><enum>303.</enum><header>Purposes</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">The purposes of this title are—</text>
<paragraph id="ID22F4C23F6E1C4024900D6491F02A5EED"><enum>(1)</enum><text>to provide to
State employees in programs or activities that receive or use Federal financial
assistance the same rights and remedies for practices violating the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) as are
available to other employees under that Act, and that were available to State
employees prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimel v. Florida Board of
Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000);</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9E02ECE18B054889A47D6A04CDB6E0C3"><enum>(2)</enum><text>to provide that
the receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for a program or activity
constitutes a State waiver of sovereign immunity from suits by employees within
that program or activity for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID060A764E719947D1ABAA69321234860E"><enum>(3)</enum><text>to affirm that
suits for injunctive relief are available against State officials in their
official capacities for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID7A1D664FF33240EA813B77886B77DA3E"><enum>(4)</enum><text>to clarify the
disparate impact standard of proof in claims under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID65BD45C30ADA4E3FADE254838DA8509D"><enum>304.</enum><header>Remedies for
State employees</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 7 of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626) is amended by
adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID10E7F238B0C842FE89B1E399FE521BD3" style="OLC">
<subsection id="ID960829E9801245FC8AC488590C0268FC"><enum>(g)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID689FFDC249E24EF68E8D7E64CAA9613E"><enum>(1)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID8C489971C55641EEB97E0563D92F6840"><enum>(A)</enum><text>A State’s receipt or
use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State
shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th amendment to
the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee of that program
or activity under this Act for equitable, legal, or other relief authorized
under this Act.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDC74A3DA46C38433684369C3AF84D8899" indent="up2"><enum>(B)</enum><text>In this paragraph, the term
<term>program or activity</term> has the meaning given the term in section 309
of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 6107).</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDE405E7BD9A7F4FC5965FE248E52DC6B2" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>An official of a State may be sued in
the official capacity of the official by any employee who has complied with the
procedures of subsections (d) and (e), for injunctive relief that is authorized
under this Act. In such a suit the court may award to the prevailing party
those costs authorized by section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1988).</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</section><section id="ID2D7F1026625042A890ABD4A222254731"><enum>305.</enum><header>Disparate
impact claims</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 4 of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) is amended by
adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="IDD0F560B3F67243B8AABE92DE3F6E900A" style="OLC">
<subsection id="IDDB9F2837D44B437093C20D0EFA203B23"><enum>(n)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="ID30F7A93A0019400FB2CCCC59D3FEA1E2"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Discrimination based on
disparate impact is established under this Act only if—</text>
<subparagraph id="IDC5E6E5ED9C0C417F9D5D2721B6DEE09A" indent="up1"><enum>(A)</enum><text>an aggrieved party demonstrates that
an employer, employment agency, or labor organization has a policy or practice
that causes a disparate impact on the basis of age and the employer, employment
agency, or labor organization fails to demonstrate that the challenged policy
or practice is based on reasonable factors that are job-related and consistent
with business necessity other than age; or</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDBEB0DF6349534CF291EA54E7D2C97A93" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><text>the aggrieved party demonstrates
(consistent with the demonstration standard under title VII of the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.) with respect to an <quote>alternative employment
practice</quote>) that a less discriminatory alternative policy or practice
exists, and the employer, employment agency, or labor organization refuses to
adopt such alternative policy or practice.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDD26346F599E34B37B135A410D389D77B" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><subparagraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDE5B20F2597B94048A8AABC3D44567225"><enum>(A)</enum><text>With respect to
demonstrating that a particular policy or practice causes a disparate impact as
described in paragraph (1)(A), the aggrieved party shall demonstrate that each
particular challenged policy or practice causes a disparate impact, except that
if the aggrieved party demonstrates to the court that the elements of an
employer, employment agency, or labor organization’s decisionmaking process are
not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be
analyzed as one policy or practice.</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDEF9D7C8A8F3F42CDBB463DD758C0A624" indent="up1"><enum>(B)</enum><text>If the employer, employment agency,
or labor organization demonstrates that a specific policy or practice does not
cause the disparate impact, the employer, employment agency, or labor
organization shall not be required to demonstrate that such policy or practice
is necessary to the operation of its business.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDAA8C51302E864C458CA054A10BCEC638" indent="up1"><enum>(3)</enum><text>A demonstration that a policy or
practice is necessary to the operation of the employer, employment agency, or
labor organization’s business may not be used as a defense against a claim of
intentional discrimination under this Act.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDE7FC2A410C78498A8D03FC50293CBC2D" indent="up1"><enum>(4)</enum><text>In this subsection, the term
<term>demonstrates</term> means meets the burdens of production and
persuasion.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</section><section id="ID973435255E624A23847420AE86224505"><enum>306.</enum><header>Effective
date</header>
<subsection id="ID77ACB69D10D84B838832D3EED3BD3285"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Waiver of
Sovereign Immunity</header><text>With respect to a particular program or
activity, section 7(g)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(29 U.S.C. 626(g)(1)) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after
the date of enactment of this title, on which a State first receives or uses
Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID2CE936AA6E6045998004892A307D1EB7"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Suits Against
Officials</header><text>Section 7(g)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(g)(2)) applies to any suit pending on or after the
date of enactment of this title.</text>
</subsection></section><enum>IV</enum><header>IMPROVED
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND WORKERS’
RIGHTS</header>
<subtitle id="id39751666A5504E65AA3AE89773602734"><enum>A</enum><header>Air Carrier
Access Act of 1986 Amendment</header>
<section id="id4E7F748B347C4FF8B8CB47F0377C724F"><enum>401.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="id2CC86EBAFFDF4CAF9581E7BEAD0B240D"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Relying on the
Supreme Courts's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), some
courts have erroneously held that when Congress passed the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–435; 100 Stat. 1080), adding a provision now
codified at section 41705 of title 49, United States Code (referred to in this
subtitle as the <quote>ACAA</quote>), Congress did not intend to create a
private right of action with which individuals with disabilities could sue air
carriers in Federal court for discrimination on the basis of disability. Love
v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F. 3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002)</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idCD6EBBDD2E404698BAD7F8EE0810BE9F"><enum>(2)</enum><text>The absence of a
private right of action leaves enforcement of the ACAA solely in the hands of
the Department of Transportation, which is overburdened and lacks the resources
to investigate, prosecute violators for, and remediate all of the violations of
the rights of travelers who are individuals with disabilities. Nor can the
Department of Transportation bring an action that will redress the injury of an
individual resulting from such a violation. The Department of Transportation
can take action that fines an air carrier or requires the air carrier to obey
the law in the future, but the Department is not authorized to issue orders
that redress the injuries sustained by individual air passengers. Action by
Congress is necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities will have
adequate remedies available when air carriers violate the ACAA (including its
regulations), and only courts may provide this redress to individuals.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="id39BD139004C943979EAD09F584F92AF5"><enum>(3)</enum><text>When an air
carrier violates the ACAA and discriminates against an individual with a
disability, frequently the only way to compensate that individual for the harm
the individual has suffered is through an award of money damages.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="idB7932A9A735D452096006A78D829B412"><enum>(4)</enum><text>Unlike other
civil rights statutes, the ACAA does not contain a fee-shifting provision under
which a prevailing plaintiff can be awarded attorney’s fees. Action by Congress
is necessary to correct this anomaly. The availability of attorney’s fees is
essential to ensuring that persons who have been aggrieved by violations of the
ACAA can enforce their rights. The inclusion of a fee-shifting provision in the
ACAA will permit individuals to serve as private attorneys general, a necessary
role on which enforcement of civil rights statutes depends.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="id06E0871BEBC24010830B0F2E303F588E"><enum>402.</enum><header>Civil
action</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 41705 of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block display-inline="no-display-inline" id="idDDFBF8E601C848FA977A604E542E10C2" style="OLC">
<subsection id="idB2C32C46667E4D569EBB63D2B8C8A92F"><enum>(d)</enum><header>Civil
Action</header><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="id7070E972E9284AD09762CF38D9B038A3"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Any person aggrieved by
an air carrier’s violation of subsection (a) (including any regulation
implementing such subsection) may bring a civil action in the district court of
the United States in the district in which the aggrieved person resides, in the
district containing the air carrier’s principal place of business, or in the
district in which the violation took place. Any such action must be commenced
within 2 years after the date of the violation.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="no-display-inline" id="id819D3670CA954193A9020834A247D0F0" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>In any civil action brought by an
aggrieved person pursuant to paragraph (1), the plaintiff may obtain both
equitable and legal relief, including compensatory and punitive damages. The
court in such action shall, in addition to such relief awarded to a prevailing
plaintiff, award reasonable attorney’s fees, reasonable expert fees, and costs
of the action to the
plaintiff.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</section></subtitle><subtitle id="ID236286AFE2D04DA69FE5346D29BA0395"><enum>B</enum><header>Prevailing
Party</header>
<section id="IDA6D4AF9728E843428E502E65CE717068"><enum>411.</enum><header>Short
title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This subtitle may be
cited as the <quote>Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="ID30C42FEA7B8D4A7883C6DE9DAF3F8B91"><enum>412.</enum><header>Definition of
prevailing party</header>
<subsection id="IDC1C1817537BA482190221FA776419633"><enum>(a)</enum><header>In
General</header><text>Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID74CC7582C6B749638DA2297BB7A71C09" style="USC">
<section id="IDA4946EDA5958410EBC601E4B42E4EBE0"><enum>9.</enum><header>Definition of
<quote>prevailing party</quote></header>
<subsection id="ID18CB80BFA1364D1CA45E51ACAE341520"><enum>(a)</enum><text>In determining
the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, or of any judicial or administrative rule, which provides for the
recovery of attorney’s fees, the term <term>prevailing party</term> shall
include, in addition to a party who substantially prevails through a judicial
or administrative judgment or order, or an enforceable written agreement, a
party whose pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim or defense was a catalyst for a
voluntary or unilateral change in position by the opposing party that provides
any significant part of the relief sought.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID9C05004ABDF94F99BE6A90990E4AA14B"><enum>(b)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDDF8B6966B361413DAA02F92C47725A2F"><enum>(1)</enum><text>If an Act, ruling,
regulation, interpretation, or rule described in subsection (a) requires a
defendant, but not a plaintiff, to satisfy certain different or additional
criteria to qualify for the recovery of attorney’s fees, subsection (a) shall
not affect the requirement that such defendant satisfy such criteria.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDC695CFC6853C434483A958A5559676F6" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>If an Act, ruling, regulation,
interpretation, or rule described in subsection (a) requires a party to satisfy
certain criteria, unrelated to whether or not such party has prevailed, to
qualify for the recovery of attorney’s fees, subsection (a) shall not affect
the requirement that such party satisfy such
criteria.</text>
</paragraph></subsection></section><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID02C20FC26F4044BFAF594B61907F7942"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Clerical
Amendment</header><text>The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of
title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:</text>
<quoted-block id="ID6CF479DEE90043689C693656F13FC7F2" style="OLC">
<toc regeneration="no-regeneration">
<toc-entry level="section">9. Definition of <quote>prevailing
party</quote>.</toc-entry>
</toc>
<after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="IDCB222DBAC0094BCB96A45C610EFDF953"><enum>(c)</enum><header>Application</header><text>Section
9 of title 1, United States Code, as added by this Act, shall apply to any case
pending or filed on or after the date of enactment of this subtitle.</text>
</subsection></section></subtitle><subtitle id="ID52B792B929234B4FA8F09C3F3AA68766"><enum>C</enum><header>Arbitration</header>
<section id="IDBBD5D28D565C4ADB85886A116EAB5634"><enum>421.</enum><header>Short
title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This subtitle may be
cited as the <quote>Preservation of Civil Rights Protections Act of
2008</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="ID279BC6A1EEC84767AF5C47071D53C992"><enum>422.</enum><header>Amendment to
Federal Arbitration Act</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is
amended by striking <quote>of seamen</quote> and all that follows through
<quote>commerce</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="ID978E5FE859204FCAA4F32C27A0DAA50B"><enum>423.</enum><header>Unenforceability
of arbitration clauses in employment contracts</header>
<subsection id="IDBDD542DCD38D424D9DE9379E72DBCD9C"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Protection of
Employee Rights</header><text>Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
clause of any agreement between an employer and an employee that requires
arbitration of a dispute arising under the Constitution or laws of the United
States shall not be enforceable.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID75118FBD0DD9443B9DA053F59AAF430E"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Exceptions</header>
<paragraph id="ID1BC7E92363B14896B87A0ACEF752EAB1"><enum>(1)</enum><header>Waiver or
consent after dispute arises</header><text>Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to any dispute if, after such dispute arises, the parties involved
knowingly and voluntarily consent to submit such dispute to arbitration.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID3819ED45CBD44A48AD0C36873F461E1D"><enum>(2)</enum><header>Collective
bargaining agreements</header><text>Subsection (a) shall not preclude the
enforcement of any of the rights or terms of a valid collective bargaining
agreement.</text>
</paragraph></subsection></section><section id="ID6D8E468B04524B5496B5F968BA0C4865"><enum>424.</enum><header>Application of
amendments</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This subtitle and
the amendment made by section 422 shall apply with respect to all employment
contracts in force before, on, or after the date of enactment of this
subtitle.</text>
</section></subtitle><subtitle id="ID9845DD952EF24456853189380A48A48D"><enum>D</enum><header>Expert Witness
Fees</header>
<section id="ID59839045816246BB8775B7EE23E5489B"><enum>431.</enum><header>Purpose</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">The purpose of this subtitle is to allow
recovery of expert fees by prevailing parties under civil rights fee-shifting
statutes.</text>
</section><section id="IDA3931707B9B149438D31990B22C00F64"><enum>432.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="ID9607401BAF01473CA8364F06B93F8754"><enum>(1)</enum><text>This subtitle is
made necessary by the decision of the Supreme Court in West Virginia University
Hospitals Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991). In Casey, the Court, per Justice
Scalia, ruled that expert fees were not recoverable under section 722 of the
Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988), as amended by the Civil Rights Attorney’s
Fees Awards Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–559; 90 Stat. 2641), because the
amendment made by the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 expressly
authorized an award of an <quote>attorney’s fee</quote> to a prevailing party
but said nothing expressly about expert fees.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID82571B15A27B40BBB1747F5F89CDCA58"><enum>(2)</enum><text>This subtitle is
especially necessary both because of the important roles played by experts in
civil rights litigation and because expert fees often represent a major cost of
the litigation.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID8029949ACE5040CFB3C0566DD2327D9C"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–166; 105 Stat. 1071), Congress amended title
VII of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name>
(42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) and section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1988) to include express authorizations of the recovery of expert fees in
successful employment discrimination litigation. It is long past time to ensure
that expert fees are available in Federal litigation under other civil rights
statutes.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID2AF6D48410AE4F80A00BF8CE635EACB5"><enum>433.</enum><header>Effective
provisions</header>
<subsection id="IDC6E46C85131B441D9C9CA01DF967AF03"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Section
<enum-in-header>722</enum-in-header> of the Revised
Statutes</header><text>Section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) is
amended—</text>
<paragraph id="IDDC5139C480FB4C0ABC775CCCBC7A072A"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in subsection
(b), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fee</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID423C24DF34B640EB835EFC73F81B4E25"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by striking
subsection (c).</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="IDFCEE26E13CE7422DA350CF276504526C"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938</header><text>Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended by inserting <quote>(including expert
fees)</quote> after <quote>attorney’s fee</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="IDD2DE23FFF0914878BB2D10FAA80CC277"><enum>(c)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="FHA">Fair Housing Act</act-name></header><text>Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID63E7371DFADB4B4894D96ACF044C6FC1"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in section
812(p), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fee</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9BAF531C70D7496D982C484E1700AED4"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in section
813(c)(2), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fee</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDDB4AA4DC04F0416D8674B71E685CDDEA"><enum>(3)</enum><text>in section
814(d)(2), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fee</quote>.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID8DB2A899BBA64CF1A5FDAAE1C3190632"><enum>(d)</enum><header>IDEA</header><text>Section
615(i)(3)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1415(i)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote>
after <quote>reasonable attorney’s fees</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID2F74CA71BFA240059F6143D830410E46"><enum>(e)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name></header><text>Section
204(b) of the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of
1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C. 2000a–3(b)) is amended by inserting
<quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after <quote>attorney’s
fee</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID5C11D0ED47F94DA99BF93B61D054200A"><enum>(f)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of 1973</act-name></header><text>Section
505(b) of the <act-name parsable-cite="REH">Rehabilitation Act of
1973</act-name> (29 U.S.C. 794a(b)) is amended by inserting <quote>(including
expert fees)</quote> after <quote>attorney’s fee</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID7EBFD9C3A3EA473884A02F44FFA05DD0"><enum>(g)</enum><header>Equal Credit
Opportunity Act</header><text>Section 706(d) of the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (15 U.S.C. 1691e(d)) is amended by inserting <quote>(including expert
fees)</quote> after <quote>attorney’s fee</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="ID760243F3818E4A8DA426853F07473955"><enum>(h)</enum><header><act-name parsable-cite="FCRA">Fair Credit Reporting Act</act-name></header><text>The
<act-name parsable-cite="FCRA">Fair Credit Reporting Act</act-name> (15 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID37846CAB9EB04A90BF9FF2DE7394A11C"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in section
616(a)(3), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fees</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDF00FBA80090846279E11E9892840751F"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in section
617(a)(2), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney’s fees</quote>.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID024D94C9E01043B7B0F619AEA7FE971E"><enum>(i)</enum><header>Freedom of
Information Act</header><text>Section 552(a)(4)(E) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney fees</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="IDF253293A2CA048969E075BA0F10AC8D6"><enum>(j)</enum><header>Privacy
Act</header><text>Section 552a(g) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended—</text>
<paragraph id="IDF30FB0A5C5844001ACFA56079DBA04C1"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in paragraph
(2)(B), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney fees</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDD08CD03985984603A8283374C5332D0B"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in paragraph
(3)(B), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney fees</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID8DC090F39F084072B76E9CC131E68045"><enum>(3)</enum><text>in paragraph
(4)(B), by inserting <quote>(including expert fees)</quote> after
<quote>attorney fees</quote>.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID997E031B8B98451AB70FE7A434C9A8A6"><enum>(k)</enum><header>Truth in
Lending Act</header><text>Section 130(a)(3) of the Truth in Lending Act (15
U.S.C. 1640(a)(3)) is amended by inserting <quote>(including expert
fees)</quote> after <quote>attorney’s fee</quote>.</text>
</subsection></section></subtitle><subtitle id="IDE82A7AE9ABC14BAC92DE9543FECA5A6A"><enum>E</enum><header>Equal Remedies
Act of 2008</header>
<section id="ID128CE72E1C9C441583366545A491CD0E"><enum>441.</enum><header>Short
title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This subtitle may be
cited as the <quote>Equal Remedies Act of 2008</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="ID442B6D23F2954F1CB67ECFC2CEE57D09"><enum>442.</enum><header>Equalization
of remedies</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 1977A of
the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID6B4A1FA4DDEA42F58BD571C7B533BCBD"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in subsection
(b)—</text>
<subparagraph id="ID138C672ECDF1474D924CA45CF04DF75E"><enum>(A)</enum><text>by striking
paragraph (3); and</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDFA9CC834136D4E5197F160809DD4D30B"><enum>(B)</enum><text>by redesignating
paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="IDB3175228A461432A9F365E99C41CD3CC"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in subsection
(c), by striking <quote>section—</quote> and all that follows through the
period, and inserting <quote>section, any party may demand a jury
trial.</quote>.</text>
</paragraph></section></subtitle><subtitle id="IDFEC74E20DB3D405AAB0194F2D7DA7306"><enum>F</enum><header>Prohibitions
Against Sex Discrimination</header>
<section id="ID1A7BCDC484F94DA8B8917A4165ABD2E9"><enum>451.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress makes the following
findings:</text>
<paragraph id="ID9362C170BC0848AD9817B1DBF322DC98"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Women have
entered the workforce in record numbers.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID337C113F9B1C4DC7B39D7EAA8418FD5F"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Even today, women
earn significantly lower pay than men for work on jobs that require equal
skill, effort, and responsibility and that are performed under similar working
conditions. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental
sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued
intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past
discrimination.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID13E2F6D366C04C5F93B32AD36FDB0C6B"><enum>(3)</enum><text>The existence of
such pay disparities—</text>
<subparagraph id="ID031B33282D8D4C0A8DC3BD55A97B2B0C"><enum>(A)</enum><text>depresses the
wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to
make ends meet;</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDE9B1DE3A5B4341ECAB3B7C64A80408FA"><enum>(B)</enum><text>prevents the
optimum utilization of available labor resources;</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID282703B21645433ABB33AB44499FC98E"><enum>(C)</enum><text>burdens commerce
and the free flow of goods in commerce; and</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDB8686282BF164867AAB5F3B68FDED99C"><enum>(D)</enum><text>in many
instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in
violation of the 5th and 14th amendments.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID796EED7C3D274EF6AAB1377A75197A3D"><enum>(4)</enum><text>Artificial
barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the
basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the
<act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
2000a et seq.).</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID836334443EDA4B9E80A74ABC3FB8E395"><enum>452.</enum><header>Enhanced
enforcement of equal pay requirements</header>
<subsection id="IDB0BB67F05A64403795D17AB09BC3D0EA"><enum>(a)</enum><header>Required
Demonstration for Affirmative Defense</header><text>Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended by striking “(iv)
a differential” and all that follows through the period and inserting the
following: “(iv) a differential based on a bona fide factor other than sex,
such as education, training or experience, except that this clause shall apply
only if—</text>
<quoted-block id="ID1A237AC2B5854FF389588A0A0BE57DC8" style="OLC">
<subclause id="ID7ECE9EB54F2349E2843D3EDCACE93018" indent="up3"><enum>(I)</enum><text>the employer demonstrates that—</text>
<item id="ID473F33800D154E0AB599F0D3499815E0"><enum>(aa)</enum><text>such factor—</text>
<subitem id="IDD961F10C850245C68DF5431DDA17EE71"><enum>(AA)</enum><text>is job-related with respect to the
position in question; or</text>
</subitem><subitem id="IDDE5F436554D84355AA3A93D17D919838"><enum>(BB)</enum><text>furthers a legitimate business purpose,
except that this item shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an
alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business
purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused
to adopt such alternative practice; and</text>
</subitem></item><item id="ID36426ABB202A4B848235B2EA2AC4FBAC"><enum>(bb)</enum><text>such factor was actually applied
and used reasonably in light of the asserted justification; and</text>
</item></subclause><subparagraph id="IDCD01369EA09B4E549E5862A34A4309DC" indent="up1"><enum>(II)</enum><text>upon the employer succeeding under
subclause (I), the employee fails to demonstrate that the differential produced
by the reliance of the employer on such factor is itself the result of
discrimination on the basis of sex by the employer.</text>
</subparagraph><quoted-block-continuation-text quoted-block-continuation-text-level="subsection">An
employer that is not otherwise in compliance with this paragraph may not reduce
the wages of any employee in order to achieve such
compliance.</quoted-block-continuation-text><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID6C32A5F4978D42CE85A84B5736104D39"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Application of
Provisions</header><text>Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
<quote>The provisions of this subsection shall apply to applicants for
employment if such applicants, upon employment by the employer, would be
subject to any provisions of this section.</quote>.</text>
</subsection><subsection id="IDF6C3CF53EB0148209E0BA3384CC86674"><enum>(c)</enum><header>Elimination of
Establishment Requirement</header><text>Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="IDB1D753A449F04136B95B5500D9D38E6B"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>, within any establishment in which such employees are
employed,</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID573DF5554DE8478FB28A3D57C348E670"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>in such establishment</quote> each place it appears.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="ID8B0D22DD8CA44E0A85436D0693251F80"><enum>(d)</enum><header>Nonretaliation
Provision</header><text>Section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID686FA24A1CED46C8A39866EAE7F3283C"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>or has</quote> each place it appears and inserting <quote>has</quote>;
and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID3CBD03AAA9234919AD14A6A687B8FC58"><enum>(2)</enum><text>by inserting
before the semicolon the following: <quote>, or has inquired about, discussed,
or otherwise disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee, or
because the employee (or applicant) has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action
under section 6(d)</quote>.</text>
</paragraph></subsection><subsection id="IDDB8D1E04CAC44FA7AD6F345A188054F8"><enum>(e)</enum><header>Enhanced
Penalties</header><text>Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID6F24147A028C4441A551F8A5056372C5"><enum>(1)</enum><text>by inserting
after the first sentence the following: <quote>Any employer who violates
section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory or punitive
damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be
liable for punitive damages.</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID23B8E663EACA458A87AB44705676E5AC"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in the sentence
beginning <quote>An action to</quote>, by striking <quote>either of the
preceding sentences</quote> and inserting <quote>any of the preceding sentences
of this subsection</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9E436D19B6A244589597A6A443E1DA01"><enum>(3)</enum><text>in the sentence
beginning <quote>No employees shall</quote>, by striking <quote>No
employees</quote> and inserting <quote>Except with respect to class actions
brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID5AF390946C8A4B60884D0F42201B255A"><enum>(4)</enum><text>by inserting
after the sentence referred to in paragraph (3), the following:
<quote>Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, any action brought
to enforce section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID42B55481994544E0B980276F61B1334C"><enum>(5)</enum><text>in the sentence
beginning <quote>The court in</quote>—</text>
<subparagraph id="IDDB42446ABA294551A22632E4BFD7B55C"><enum>(A)</enum><text>by striking
<quote>in such action</quote> and inserting <quote>in any action brought to
recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this
subsection</quote>; and</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID9363BC470201460C9D59F9FC51CE1C26"><enum>(B)</enum><text>by inserting
before the period the following: <quote>, including expert fees</quote>.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph></subsection><subsection id="IDEFF6F1261C7449EAB73B24E01200FACD"><enum>(f)</enum><header>Action by
Secretary</header><text>Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended—</text>
<paragraph id="ID6252416683244AEBBC53362DA2A5ED47"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in the first
sentence—</text>
<subparagraph id="ID6D26EFAB2FAB4C35996069C22DD2807C"><enum>(A)</enum><text>by inserting
<quote>or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory
or punitive damages,</quote> before <quote>and the agreement</quote>;
and</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="ID2136EE2FAF834125A69C47C40BD1D970"><enum>(B)</enum><text>by inserting
before the period the following: <quote>, or such compensatory or punitive
damages, as appropriate</quote>;</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><paragraph id="ID3A055C6C69DF4D2D8A5ED3A506F9CF1A"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in the second
sentence, by inserting before the period the following: <quote>and, in the case
of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive
damages</quote>;</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9BA106636F1441ED92A923E0E64D7887"><enum>(3)</enum><text>in the third
sentence, by striking <quote>the first sentence</quote> and inserting
<quote>the first or second sentence</quote>; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID1906FD766E3C450D9FF6450C957B174D"><enum>(4)</enum><text>in the last
sentence—</text>
<subparagraph id="ID231C70D1069741C99B7234C62F03745B"><enum>(A)</enum><text>by striking
“commenced in the case” and inserting “commenced—</text>
<quoted-block id="ID7DCF997BD1C54870B6E0ECB96EABDA46" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="ID150ECF94C6694F109357D2B30D18D351"><enum>(1)</enum><text>in the
case</text>
</paragraph><after-quoted-block>;</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDFB891C068AE94DF68EFCBA05E6CA7A56"><enum>(B)</enum><text>by striking the
period and inserting <quote>; or</quote>; and</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDBFCD7DB38D0548A7BB54286942BEEFCD"><enum>(C)</enum><text>by adding at the
end the following:</text>
<quoted-block id="IDE2509D011D004362A785DBFF3D0CAA58" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="ID20739DCC5FD342B096D5BCBA41BE22DB"><enum>(2)</enum><text>in the case of a
class action brought to enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the
individual becomes a party plaintiff to the class
action.</text>
</paragraph><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subparagraph></paragraph></subsection></section></subtitle><subtitle id="IDB57F9D3FC6EE41EDAA890DA48BF8B02D"><enum>G</enum><header>Protections for
Workers</header>
<chapter id="id302042B601744638A117FC8CB8F80FDA"><enum>1</enum><header>Protection for
Undocumented Workers</header>
<section id="ID76D1B9BD8C534C90B56DF8529E0150D3"><enum>461.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text>
<paragraph id="ID9163F2D73D3B4877B8B729178F5A303F"><enum>(1)</enum><text>The National
Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) (in this chapter referred to as the
<quote>NLRA</quote>), enacted in 1935, guarantees the right of employees to
organize and to bargain collectively with their employers. The NLRA implements
the national labor policy of assuring free choice and encouraging collective
bargaining as a means of maintaining industrial peace. The National Labor
Relations Board (in this chapter referred to as the <quote>NLRB</quote>) was
created by Congress to enforce the provisions of the NLRA.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID4B5C928FD6144CEC8B29DF6DAEEC53F1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Under section 8
of the NLRA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees
<quote>in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization</quote>. (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)). Employers who violate these
provisions are subject to a variety of sanctions, including reinstatement of
workers found to be illegally discharged because of their union support or
activity and provision of backpay to those employees. Such sanctions serve to
remedy and deter illegal actions by employers.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID139B4F4B69AC4409A005F91D76BCE294"><enum>(3)</enum><text>In Hoffman
Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), the Supreme Court held by
a 5 to 4 vote that Federal immigration policy, as articulated in amendments
made by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–603; 100
Stat. 3359), prevented the NLRB from awarding backpay to an undocumented
immigrant who was discharged in violation of the NLRA because of his support
for union representation at his workplace.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID8ABBFCFEEAE84022BB31B0FA5B702691"><enum>(4)</enum><text>The decision in
Hoffman has an impact on all employees, regardless of immigration or
citizenship status, who try to improve their working conditions. In the wake of
Hoffman Plastics, employers may be more likely to report to the Department of
Homeland Security minority workers, regardless of their immigration or
citizenship status, who pursue claims under the NLRA against their employers.
Fear that employers may retaliate against employees that exercise their rights
under the NLRA has a chilling effect on all employees who exercise their labor
rights.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID828B188F059F4C489548C7CF92B7EBC3"><enum>(5)</enum><text>The NLRA is not
the only Federal employment statute that provides for a backpay award as a
remedy for an unlawful discharge. For example, courts routinely award backpay
to employees who are found to have been discharged in violation of title VII of
the <act-name parsable-cite="CRA64">Civil Rights Act of 1964</act-name> (42
U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) or the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) (in retaliation for complaining about a failure to comply with the
minimum wage). In the wake of the Hoffman decision, defendant employers will
now argue that backpay awards to unlawfully discharged undocumented workers are
barred under Federal employment statutes and even under State employment
statutes.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDCF3902A849974FBC89AF07950BD28E74"><enum>(6)</enum><text>Because the
Hoffman decision prevents the imposition of sanctions on employers who
discriminate against undocumented immigrant workers, employers are encouraged
to employ such workers for low-paying and dangerous jobs because they have no
legal redress for violations of the law. This creates an economic incentive for
employers to hire and exploit undocumented workers, which in turn tends to
undermine the living standards and working conditions of all Americans,
citizens and noncitizens alike.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID9DF13374462E44228466AA5329DE16C5"><enum>(7)</enum><text>The Hoffman
decision disadvantages many employers as well. Employers who are forced to
compete with firms that hire and exploit undocumented immigrant workers are
saddled with an economic disadvantage in the labor marketplace. The unintended
creation of an economic inducement for employers to exploit undocumented
immigrant workers gives those employers an unfair competitive advantage over
employers that treat workers lawfully and fairly.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDD1BC7AEDF6524401B2BFB42D9B028BFE"><enum>(8)</enum><text>The Court’s
decision in Hoffman makes clear that <quote>any <quote>perceived deficiency in
the NLRA’s existing remedial arsenal</quote> must be <quote>addressed by
congressional action[.]</quote></quote> Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB,
535 U.S. 137, 152 (2002) (quoting Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 904
(1984)). In emphasizing the importance of back pay awards, Justice Breyer noted
that such awards against employers <quote>help[] to deter unlawful activity
that both labor laws and immigration laws seek to prevent</quote>. Hoffman
Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 152 (2002). Because back pay
awards are designed both to remedy the individual’s private right to be free
from discrimination as well as to enforce the important public policy against
discriminatory employment practices, Congress must take the following
corrective action.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="IDB18154E6FC7C4BA6A564CE22C752494B"><enum>462.</enum><header>Continued
application of backpay remedies</header>
<subsection id="ID38CCD314AE114F7AAA7323B324326AC0"><enum>(a)</enum><header>In
General</header><text>Section 274A(h) of the <act-name parsable-cite="INA">Immigration and Nationality Act</act-name> (8 U.S.C.
1324a(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block act-name="Immigration and Nationality Act" id="IDEA1A0906FC0845C791F107A4A9D7B23B" style="OLC">
<paragraph id="IDC7718ACA021D480BAACCC726AB78839F"><enum>(4)</enum><header>Backpay
remedies</header><text>Backpay or other monetary relief for unlawful employment
practices shall not be denied to a present or former employee as a result of
the employer’s or the employee’s—</text>
<subparagraph id="ID7F7EE1E66BFF4D258866D36C7F75A6E9"><enum>(A)</enum><text>failure to comply
with the requirements of this section; or</text>
</subparagraph><subparagraph id="IDA0AE111B208D41B08F0556B185221912"><enum>(B)</enum><text>violation of a
provision of Federal law related to the employment verification system
described in subsection (b) in establishing or maintaining the employment
relationship.</text>
</subparagraph></paragraph><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</subsection><subsection id="ID180E7CBC14D9405BB29F6D31F515DF27"><enum>(b)</enum><header>Effective
Date</header><text>The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any
failure to comply or any violation that occurs prior to, on, or after the date
of enactment of this subtitle.</text>
</subsection></section></chapter><chapter id="id5AE0573C2F06470EAA2D60336C9DF940"><enum>2</enum><header>Fair Labor
Standards Act Amendments</header>
<section id="ID61FE803FC4F34800B4162E6F3C7E1061"><enum>466.</enum><header>Short
title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This chapter may be
cited as the <quote>Workers’ Minimum Wage and Overtime Rights Restoration Act
of 2008</quote>.</text>
</section><section id="IDA74A51BB792F4EB0B41173FA49780604"><enum>467.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following with respect to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) (in this chapter
referred to as the <quote>FLSA</quote>):</text>
<paragraph id="ID8C1F6490255F4615B891AEBEA72D515A"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Since 1974, the
FLSA has regulated States with respect to the payment of minimum wage and
overtime rates. In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469
U.S. 528 (1985), the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s constitutional authority
to regulate States in the payment of minimum wages and overtime. The
prohibitions of the FLSA remain in effect and continue to apply to the
States.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID4C00C2C76B1544B49D6601021FF7C7B7"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Wage and overtime
violations in employment remain a serious problem both nationally and among
State and other public and private entities receiving Federal financial
assistance, and has invidious effects on its victims, the labor force, and the
general welfare and economy as a whole. For example, 7 State governments have
no overtime laws at all. Fourteen State governments have minimum wage and
overtime laws; however, they exclude employees covered under the FLSA. As such,
public employees, since they are covered under the FLSA are not protected under
these State laws. Additionally, 4 States have minimum wage and overtime laws
which are inferior to the FLSA. Further, the Department of Labor continues to
receive a substantial number of wage and overtime charges against State
government employers.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID80DBA0E80FEF432190F19DBF7B8F8535"><enum>(3)</enum><text>Private civil
suits by the victims of employment law violations have been a crucial tool for
enforcement of the FLSA. In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), however, the
Supreme Court held that Congress lacks the power under the 14th amendment to
the Constitution to abrogate State sovereign immunity to suits for legal relief
by individuals under the FLSA. The Federal Government has an important interest
in ensuring that Federal financial assistance is not used to facilitate
violations of the FLSA, and private civil suits for monetary relief are a
critical tool for advancing that interest.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID01A05BE386C74F26B8CE4C0B63E9171A"><enum>(4)</enum><text>After the Alden
decision, wage and overtime violations by State employers remain unlawful, but
victims of such violations lack important remedies for vindication of their
rights available to all other employees covered by the FLSA. In the absence of
the deterrent effect that such remedies provide, there is a great likelihood
that State entities carrying out federally funded programs and activities will
use Federal financial assistance to violate the FLSA, or that the Federal
financial assistance will otherwise subsidize or facilitate FLSA
violations.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID85DEE8F84C6C4C5EB6FF4710C6F870C7"><enum>(5)</enum><text>The Supreme Court
has upheld Congress’s authority to condition receipt of Federal financial
assistance on acceptance by State or other covered entities of conditions
regarding or related to the use of those funds, as in Cannon v. University of
Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID5FABBC0416DD431C8F5AB70479D95BD0"><enum>(6)</enum><text>The Court has
further recognized that Congress may require State entities, as a condition of
receipt of Federal financial assistance, to waive their State sovereign
immunity to suits for a violation of Federal law, as in College Savings Bank v.
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666
(1999).</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDF37EEF6617E94834943913C1B3F17AD5"><enum>(7)</enum><text>In the wake of
the Alden decision, it is necessary, in order to foster greater compliance
with, and adequate remedies for violations of, the FLSA, particularly in
federally funded programs or activities operated by State entities, to require
State entities to consent to a waiver of State sovereign immunity as a
condition of receipt of such Federal financial assistance.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDF00E3AB2DEC34F17A8FA388531645039"><enum>(8)</enum><text>The Supreme Court
has repeatedly held that State sovereign immunity does not bar suits for
prospective injunctive relief brought against State officials acting in their
official capacity, as in Ex parte Young (209 U.S. 123 (1908)). The injunctive
relief available in such suits under the FLSA will continue to be the same as
that which was available under those laws prior to enactment of this
chapter.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID46F95AB936D34F0599C4BF9A578F3499"><enum>468.</enum><header>Purposes</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">The purposes of this chapter are—</text>
<paragraph id="ID95F4E28BB0E748C0B8D03C2837A79413"><enum>(1)</enum><text>to provide to
State employees in programs or activities that receive or use Federal financial
assistance the same rights and remedies for practices violating the FLSA as are
available to other employees under the FLSA, and that were available to State
employees prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706
(1999);</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="ID22BC920C783548CBAC71906EFD67F6E3"><enum>(2)</enum><text>to provide that
the receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for a program or activity
constitutes a State waiver of sovereign immunity from suits by employees within
that program or activity for violations of the FLSA; and</text>
</paragraph><paragraph id="IDC58FF6D761DE4CD6BA08B74E2D56E37F"><enum>(3)</enum><text>to affirm that
suits for injunctive relief are available against State officials in their
official capacities for violations of the FLSA.</text>
</paragraph></section><section id="ID15BEFD936ACD43A6BCF19D5814934CE1"><enum>469.</enum><header>Remedies for
State employees</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Section 16 of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding at
the end the following:</text>
<quoted-block display-inline="no-display-inline" id="IDD11F3454D9EA484DA06570A9D56745BC" style="OLC">
<subsection id="IDD149E5D8DA75447CB7918E444C71C3C4"><enum>(f)</enum><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="IDC2FFB1CE1E714401B5ED38D178F93644"><enum>(1)</enum><text>A State’s receipt or
use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State
shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th amendment to
the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee of that program
or activity under this Act for equitable, legal, or other relief authorized
under this Act.</text>
</paragraph><paragraph commented="no" display-inline="no-display-inline" id="IDC45AB295623E45A5BCBCD05CC87B266D" indent="up1"><enum>(2)</enum><text>In this subsection, the term
<term>program or activity</term> has the meaning given the term in section 309
of the <act-name parsable-cite="ADA75">Age Discrimination Act of
1975</act-name> (42 U.S.C.
6107).</text>
</paragraph></subsection><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block>
</section></chapter></subtitle>