II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1776

To amend the Revised Statutes to restore standards for proving intentional

discrimination.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. METZENBAUM (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. WOFFORD, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. SIMON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Revised Statutes to restore standards for

proving intentional discrimination.

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 ‘‘Civil Rights Standards

5 Restoration Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) the Supreme Court enunciated a method of

9 proving intentional discrimination under Federal law

10 in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
2

•S 1776 IS

1 (1973), and Texas Department of Community

2 Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981);

3 (2) such method has been applied to establish

4 intentional discrimination in cases and proceedings

5 under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

6 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), title VIII of the Civil Rights

7 Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), the Age Dis8 crimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.

9 621 et seq.), and other Federal laws; and

10 (3) the standards established in St. Mary’s

11 Honor Center v. Hicks, No. 92–602 (1993), regard12 ing the effect of a finding of pretext on proof of un13 lawful intentional discrimination, are contrary to—

14 (A) such method established by the Su15 preme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

16 Green and Texas Department of Community

17 Affairs v. Burdine; and

18 (B) congressional intent regarding such

19 Federal laws.

20 SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

21 The purposes of this Act are—

22 (1) to restore the standards (regarding the

23 effect of a finding of pretext on proof of unlawful in24 tentional discrimination) enunciated by the Supreme

25 Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and
3

•S 1776 IS

1 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine

2 as part of a method of proving intentional discrimi3 nation; and

4 (2) to ensure the application of such restored

5 standards in all cases and proceedings under Fed6 eral law (including title VII of the Civil Rights Act

7 of 1964, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,

8 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,

9 and other Federal laws) to which such method

10 applies.

11 SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR PROVING INTENTIONAL DISCRIMI12 NATION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

13 The Revised Statutes are amended by inserting after

14 section 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983) the following new section:

15 ‘‘SEC. 1979A. STANDARDS FOR PROVING INTENTIONAL DIS16 CRIMINATION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

17 ‘‘(a) STANDARDS.—In a case or proceeding brought

18 under Federal law in which a complaining party meets its

19 burden of proving a prima facie case of unlawful inten20 tional discrimination and the respondent meets its burden

21 of clearly and specifically articulating a legitimate, non22 discriminatory explanation for the conduct at issue

23 through the introduction of admissible evidence, unlawful

24 intentional discrimination shall be established where the
4

•S 1776 IS

1 complaining party persuades a trier of fact, by a prepon2 derance of the evidence, that—

3 ‘‘(1) a discriminatory reason more likely moti4 vated the respondent; or

5 ‘‘(2) the respondent’s proffered explanation is

6 unworthy of credence.

7 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall

8 apply only to those cases and proceedings in which the

9 method of proof articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp.

10 v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas Department

11 of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981),

12 applies and shall not be construed to specify the exclusive

13 means by which the complaining party may establish un14 lawful intentional discrimination under Federal law.’’.

Æ