S. 2189 (112th): Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act

Introduced:
Mar 13, 2012 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)
Status:
Died (Referred to Committee)
Sponsor
Thomas “Tom” Harkin
Junior Senator from Iowa
Party
Democrat
Text
Read Text »
Last Updated
Mar 13, 2012
Length
12 pages
Related Bills
S. 1756 (111th) was a previous version of this bill.

Referred to Committee
Last Action: Oct 06, 2009

 
Status

This bill was introduced on March 13, 2012, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress
Introduced Mar 13, 2012
Referred to Committee Mar 13, 2012
 
Full Title

A bill to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate standards for Federal antidiscrimination and antiretaliation claims, and for other purposes.

Summary

No summaries available.

Cosponsors
16 cosponsors (10D, 6R) (show)
Committees

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

 
Primary Source

THOMAS.gov (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here. Data comes via the congress project.

Widget

Get a bill status widget for your website »

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

Notes

S. stands for Senate bill.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the president to become law.

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


3/13/2012--Introduced.
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act - Amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to specify that an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that age or participation in investigations, proceedings, or litigation under such Act was a motivating factor for any practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice (thereby allowing what are commonly known as "mixed motive" claims).
Permits a complaining party to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence, which need only be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that an unlawful practice occurred.
Declares that a complaining party shall not be required to demonstrate that age or retaliation was the sole cause of a practice (thereby rejecting the Supreme Court decision in Gross v.
FBL Financial Services, Inc., which requires a complainant to prove that age was the "but-for" cause for the employer's decision).
Authorizes the court, on a claim in which an individual demonstrates that age was a motivating factor for any employment practice and in which a respondent demonstrates that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, to grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs directly attributable only to the pursuit of a claim.
Prohibits the court in such an instance from awarding damages or issuing an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment.
Applies the same standard of proof to other employment discrimination and retaliation claims, including claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and similar laws concerning federal employees.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.


No summary available.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

Use the comment space below for discussion of the merits of S. 2189 (112th) with other GovTrack users.
Your comments are not read by Congressional staff.

comments powered by Disqus