2021: Schweikert Voted Against Making Age Discrimination By Employers Unlawful, Reversing 2009 SCOTUS' Decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., And Against Requiring Various Reports On The Age Discrimination In Employment Claims. In June 2021, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted For 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, Schweikert voted for 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: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting Discrimination Against Job Applicants On The Basis Of Age. In November 2021, Schweikert voted against 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]