I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4275 

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the application 

of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2012 

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. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Wards Cove 

5 Workers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) In 1974, Frank Atonio, a United States cit9 izen of Samoan descent, and 9 other minority salmVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:43 Apr 04, 2012 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4275.IH H4275

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4275 IH

1 on workers filed a class-action employment discrimi2 nation suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

3 against Wards Cove Packing Company that eventu4 ally involved 2,000 workers of Filipino, Samoan, 

5 Chinese, Japanese, and Alaska native descent. 

6 (2) The lawsuit represented workers who 

7 charged that minority employees at Wards Cove’s 

8 seasonal cannery in Ketchikan, Alaska, were dis9 criminated based on their race. 

10 (3) Nearly all of the company’s unskilled, lower11 paid cannery-line workers were ethnic minorities. 

12 Nearly all of the higher-paid machinists, engineers, 

13 and quality-control personnel were Caucasian. 

14 (4) The 2 groups lived in separate dormitories 

15 and ate in separate mess halls. One machine was 

16 dubbed the ‘‘Iron Chink,’’ and living quarters for 

17 Filipino workers were referred to as the ‘‘Flip 

18 House.’’ 

19 (5) In 1989, the Supreme Court in Wards Cove 

20 Packing Co. v. Atonio ruled in the company’s favor, 

21 5–4, rolling back plaintiff’s rights in discrimination 

22 cases. The court ruling shifted the burden of proof 

23 from employers to employees alleging workplace dis24 crimination. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4275 IH

1 (6) Undoing the legal precedent established by 

2 that court ruling became a critical impetus for the 

3 Civil Rights Act of 1991. 

4 (7) Section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 

5 1991 contained an exception clause for cases in 

6 which a complaint was filed in 1975 and decided in 

7 1983: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

8 Act, nothing in this Act shall apply to any disparate 

9 impact case for which a complaint was filed before 

10 March 1, 1975, and for which an initial decision was 

11 rendered after October 30, 1983.’’ Only 1 case falls 

12 within this exclusion, that being the Wards Cove 

13 case. 

14 (8) Section 402(b) of such Act effectively 

15 blocked the expansion of procedural and substantive 

16 rights provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 from 

17 taking effect to the very people whose lawsuit shed 

18 light into discrimination in the workplace. 

19 (9) In March 1993, President William Jefferson 

20 Clinton announced his support to remove the exemp21 tion, stating that ‘‘It is contrary to all of our ideas 

22 to exclude any American from the protection of our 

23 civil-rights laws’’. 

24 (10) The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is considered 

25 to be the most comprehensive civil rights legislation 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 4275 IH

1 to pass Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

2 Like the 1964 landmark Act, the 1991 Act prohibits 

3 all discrimination in employment based on race, gen4 der, color, religious, or ethnic considerations. 

5 (11) Yet so long as Section 402(b) of such Act 

6 remains in place, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will 

7 always be marred as a law that is deeply discrimina8 tory. 

9 (12) Section 402(b) of such Act remains a po10 tent symbol of injustice among Asian-Americans and 

11 civil rights groups. 

12 SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS. 

13 Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 

14 U.S.C. 1981 note) is amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GEN16 ERAL.—’’; and 

17 (2) by striking subsection (b). 

18 SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. 

19 (a) APPLICATION.—For purposes of determining the 

20 application of the amendments made by the Civil Rights 

21 Act of 1991, such amendments shall apply to a case that 

22 was subject to section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 

23 1991 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 

24 of this Act) in the same manner and to the same extent 

25 as such amendments apply to any case brought under title 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 4275 IH

1 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 

2 seq.) that was not subject to section 402(b) of the Civil 

3 Rights Act of 1991. 

4 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 

5 construed to alter, or shall be considered to be evidence 

6 of, congressional intent regarding the application of such 

7 amendments to any case that was not subject to section 

8 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS