2021: Fitzpatrick Voted To Make Age Discrimination By Employers
Unlawful, Reversing 2009 SCOTUS' Decision in Gross v. FBL Financial
Services, Inc., And Require Various Reports On The Age Discrimination In
Employment Claims. In June 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for the Protecting
Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021 which would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "specify a that adverse actions by an
employer in which age was a motivating factor shall be considered
unlawful under federal employment law regarding age discrimination. It
would specify that a complaining party under such law would not be
required to demonstrate that age was the sole motivating factor of an
adverse action, thus effectively reversing the 2009 Supreme Court
decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. It would establish the
same standard of proof in the case of employment discrimination based on
disability or retaliation against an employee who opposes unlawful
employment practices or participates in investigations or litigations
related to such practices. In age-based employment discrimination cases
where a court determines that an adverse action would have been taken in
the absence of age-based motivation, the bill would allow courts to
grant declaratory or injunctive relief and attorney's fees, but prohibit
courts from awarding damages or ordering reparative actions by the
respondent. As amended, it would require the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to submit reports to Congress on the number of
age discrimination in employment claims brought under the bill's
provisions; disparities faced by individuals with characteristics
protected under existing anti-discrimination law in pursuing employment
discrimination relief under the mixed-motive evidentiary standard; and
the number of pending or filed claims by women impacted by age-based
employment discrimination." The vote was on passage. The House passed
the bill by a vote of 247-178. The Senate did not take substantive
action on the bill. [House Vote 180,
6/23/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/23/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2062]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted Against An Amendment That Would Require A
Government Accountability Office Study Before The Bill's Enactment On
Whether Not Permitting Job Applicants To File Disparate Impact Claims
Would Have Negative Impacts, And If Results Show Negative Impacts, The
Bill Would Not Take Effect. In November 2021, Fitzpatrick voted
against an amendment to the Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021
which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "delay the bill's
effective date until the Government Accountability Office conducts a
study and reports to Congress on whether not allowing job applicants to
file disparate impact claims has a negative impact on such applicants.
It would stipulate that the bill's provisions would not take effect if
the study shows there is not a significant negative impact on such
applicants." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House
rejected the amendment by a vote of 197-228. [House Vote 357,
11/4/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 11/4/21;
Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.
138;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3992]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For Prohibiting Discrimination Against Job
Applicants On The Basis Of Age. In November 2021, Fitzpatrick voted
for the Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021 which would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit an employer from discriminating
against a job applicant in a way that would deprive the job applicant of
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the applicant's
status based on the applicant's age." The vote was on passage. The
House passed the bill by a vote of 224-200. [House Vote 358,
11/4/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 11/4/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3992]
The New Protections Would Expand The 1967 Law Prohibiting
Workplace Age Discrimination To Permit Older Job Applicants To Take
Action Against Employer Discrimination Based On Their Older Age.
According to The Hill, "The legislation would specifically expand
the 1967 law prohibiting age discrimination in the workplace to
allow older job applicants to bring claims of disparate impact
discrimination against employers." [The Hill,
11/4/21]
Advocates For The Measure Argued The Necessity To Expand The 1967
Law Due To The Impacts Of The COVID-19 Pandemic, In Which Laid Off
Job Applicants Over The Age Of 50 Struggled To Find Jobs Due To
Various Factors, Including Accessibility To Their Birth Year On
Online Job Applications. According to The Hill, "Proponents of the
measure argued that the need to clarify the existing law became
particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic as job applicants
age 50 or older who were laid off from their jobs reported
difficulties finding new employment, such as encountering an online
job application with a drop-down menu that didn't list their birth
year as an option." [The Hill,
11/4/21]
Republicans Opposed The Expansion, Argued That The Legislation
Would Create More Lawsuits, And That The 1967 Law Provides Enough
Protections To Older Job Applicants. According to The Hill,
"Republicans, meanwhile, warned that the measure would only lead to
more lawsuits and argued that existing law already provides older
people with protections." [The Hill,
11/4/21]