I 

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. 

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 ‘‘Certainty in Enforce5 ment Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5423 IH

1 (1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Com2 mission (EEOC) has, since 1965, been responsible 

3 for enforcing Federal laws against employment dis4 crimination, but there are growing concerns about 

5 the enforcement and policy approach adopted by the 

6 EEOC, raising questions about whether the best in7 terests of workers and employers are being served. 

8 (2) The EEOC may promulgate guidance under 

9 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that guidance does 

10 not have the force of law, and in some cases has 

11 been rejected by the courts. 

12 (3) In 2012, the EEOC promulgated enforce13 ment guidance regarding the use of criminal back14 ground checks that put employers in the position of 

15 acting contrary to Federal, State, and local laws 

16 that require employers to conduct criminal back17 ground checks for certain positions, such as public 

18 safety officers, teachers, and daycare providers. 

19 (4) In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., a case chal20 lenging Peoplemark’s use of criminal background 

21 checks in making employment decisions, the Court 

22 of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in October 2013 af23 firmed an award of $751,942 against the EEOC for 

24 prevailing defendant Peoplemark’s attorney’s and ex25 pert fees. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5423 IH

1 (5) In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Cor2 poration, a case challenging Kaplan’s use of credit 

3 reports in the hiring process, the Court of Appeals 

4 for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s de5 cision granting summary judgment in favor of 

6 Kaplan and stated that the EEOC brought a case 

7 on the basis of a ‘‘homemade methodology, crafted 

8 by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, 

9 administered by persons with no particular expertise 

10 to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only 

11 by the witness himself’’. 

12 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT. 

13 Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 

14 U.S.C. 2000e–2) is amended by adding at the end the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(o) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 

17 it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an 

18 employer, labor organization, or employment agency, or 

19 for a joint labor management committee controlling ap20 prenticeships or other training or retraining opportunities, 

21 to engage in an employment practice that is required by 

22 Federal, State, or local law, in an area such as, but not 

23 limited to, health care, childcare, in-home services, policVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:10 Sep 10, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5423.IH H5423

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 5423 IH

1 ing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and 

2 fiduciary duties.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS