Justice for Wards Cove Workers Act - Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to remove a provision excluding from application of the Act any disparate impact case filed before March 1, 1975, and decided after October 30, 1983. (Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 1989, held that, in cases brought under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove an employer had no business necessity for a practice with discriminatory effects.) Applies the amendments made by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to a case that is subject to the removed provision in the same way such amendments apply to any other case brought under the employment discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2215 Introduced in House (IH)]
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2215
To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the application
of such Act.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 24, 2013
Mr. McDermott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the application
of such Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for Wards Cove Workers
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1974, Frank Atonio, a United States citizen of
Samoan descent, and 9 other minority salmon workers filed a
class-action employment discrimination suit under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 against Wards Cove Packing Company that
eventually involved 2,000 workers of Filipino, Samoan, Chinese,
Japanese, and Alaska native descent.
(2) The lawsuit represented workers who charged that
minority employees at Wards Cove's seasonal cannery in
Ketchikan, Alaska, were discriminated based on their race.
(3) Nearly all of the company's unskilled, lower-paid
cannery-line workers were ethnic minorities. Nearly all of the
higher-paid machinists, engineers, and quality-control
personnel were Caucasian.
(4) The 2 groups lived in separate dormitories and ate in
separate mess halls. One machine was dubbed the ``Iron Chink'',
and living quarters for Filipino workers were referred to as
the ``Flip House''.
(5) In 1989, the Supreme Court in Wards Cove Packing Co. v.
Atonio ruled in the company's favor, 5-4, rolling back
plaintiff's rights in discrimination cases. The court ruling
shifted the burden of proof from employers to employees
alleging workplace discrimination.
(6) Undoing the legal precedent established by that court
ruling became a critical impetus for the Civil Rights Act of
1991.
(7) Section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
contained an exception clause for cases in which a complaint
was filed in 1975 and decided in 1983: ``Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall apply to
any disparate impact case for which a complaint was filed
before March 1, 1975, and for which an initial decision was
rendered after October 30, 1983.'' Only 1 case falls within
this exclusion, that being the Wards Cove case.
(8) Section 402(b) of such Act effectively blocked the
expansion of procedural and substantive rights provided by the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 from taking effect to the very people
whose lawsuit shed light into discrimination in the workplace.
(9) In March 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton
announced his support to remove the exemption, stating that
``It is contrary to all of our ideas to exclude any American
from the protection of our civil-rights laws''.
(10) The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is considered to be the
most comprehensive civil rights legislation to pass Congress
since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like the 1964 landmark Act,
the 1991 Act prohibits all discrimination in employment based
on race, gender, color, religious, or ethnic considerations.
(11) Yet so long as Section 402(b) of such Act remains in
place, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will always be marred as a
law that is deeply discriminatory.
(12) Section 402(b) of such Act remains a potent symbol of
injustice among Asian-Americans and civil rights groups.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS.
Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 1981 note)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) In General.--'';
and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Application.--For purposes of determining the application of
the amendments made by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, such amendments
shall apply to a case that was subject to section 402(b) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act) in the same manner and to the same extent as
such amendments apply to any case brought under title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) that was not subject to
section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter,
or shall be considered to be evidence of, congressional intent
regarding the application of such amendments to any case that was not
subject to section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E763)
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line