```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5423 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5423

   To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude the 
     application of such title to employment practices that are in 
 compliance with Federal regulations, and State laws, in certain areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2014

 Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Hudson) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude the 
     application of such title to employment practices that are in 
 compliance with Federal regulations, and State laws, in certain areas.

    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 ``Certainty in Enforcement Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has, 
        since 1965, been responsible for enforcing Federal laws against 
        employment discrimination, but there are growing concerns about 
        the enforcement and policy approach adopted by the EEOC, 
        raising questions about whether the best interests of workers 
        and employers are being served.
            (2) The EEOC may promulgate guidance under the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964, but that guidance does not have the force of law, 
        and in some cases has been rejected by the courts.
            (3) In 2012, the EEOC promulgated enforcement guidance 
        regarding the use of criminal background checks that put 
        employers in the position of acting contrary to Federal, State, 
        and local laws that require employers to conduct criminal 
        background checks for certain positions, such as public safety 
        officers, teachers, and daycare providers.
            (4) In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., a case challenging 
        Peoplemark's use of criminal background checks in making 
        employment decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
        Circuit in October 2013 affirmed an award of $751,942 against 
        the EEOC for prevailing defendant Peoplemark's attorney's and 
        expert fees.
            (5) In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a case 
        challenging Kaplan's use of credit reports in the hiring 
        process, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed 
        the district court's decision granting summary judgment in 
        favor of Kaplan and stated that the EEOC brought a case on the 
        basis of a ``homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no 
        particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with 
        no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and 
        accepted only by the witness himself''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT.

    Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(o) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall 
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor 
organization, or employment agency, or for a joint labor management 
committee controlling apprenticeships or other training or retraining 
opportunities, to engage in an employment practice that is required by 
Federal, State, or local law, in an area such as, but not limited to, 
health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, 
education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties.''.
                                 <all>
```