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 Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall with-
in the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to 
the application of such Act. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Wards Cove 
Workers Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) In 1974, Frank Atonio, a United States cit-
izen of Samoan descent, and 9 other minority salm-
VerDate 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
on workers filed a class-action employment discrimi-
nation suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
against Wards Cove Packing Company that eventu-
ally involved 2,000 workers of Filipino, Samoan, 
Chinese, Japanese, and Alaska native descent. 
(2) The lawsuit represented workers who 
charged that minority employees at Wards Cove’s 
seasonal cannery in Ketchikan, Alaska, were dis-
criminated based on their race. 
(3) Nearly all of the company’s unskilled, lower- 
paid cannery-line workers were ethnic minorities. 
Nearly all of the higher-paid machinists, engineers, 
and quality-control personnel were Caucasian. 
(4) The 2 groups lived in separate dormitories 
and ate in separate mess halls. One machine was 
dubbed the ‘‘Iron Chink,’’ and living quarters for 
Filipino workers were referred to as the ‘‘Flip 
House.’’ 
(5) In 1989, the Supreme Court in Wards Cove 
Packing Co. v. Atonio ruled in the company’s favor, 
5–4, rolling back plaintiff’s rights in discrimination 
cases. The court ruling shifted the burden of proof 
from employers to employees alleging workplace dis-
crimination. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:43 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4275.IH
H4275
pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(6) Undoing the legal precedent established by 
that court ruling became a critical impetus for the 
Civil Rights Act of 1991. 
(7) Section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 
1991 contained an exception clause for cases in 
which a complaint was filed in 1975 and decided in 
1983: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Act, nothing in this Act shall apply to any disparate 
impact case for which a complaint was filed before 
March 1, 1975, and for which an initial decision was 
rendered after October 30, 1983.’’ Only 1 case falls 
within this exclusion, that being the Wards Cove 
case. 
(8) Section 402(b) of such Act effectively 
blocked the expansion of procedural and substantive 
rights provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 from 
taking effect to the very people whose lawsuit shed 
light into discrimination in the workplace. 
(9) In March 1993, President William Jefferson 
Clinton announced his support to remove the exemp-
tion, stating that ‘‘It is contrary to all of our ideas 
to exclude any American from the protection of our 
civil-rights laws’’. 
(10) The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is considered 
to be the most comprehensive civil rights legislation 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:43 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4275.IH
H4275
pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
to pass Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
Like the 1964 landmark Act, the 1991 Act prohibits 
all discrimination in employment based on race, gen-
der, color, religious, or ethnic considerations. 
(11) Yet so long as Section 402(b) of such Act 
remains in place, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will 
always be marred as a law that is deeply discrimina-
tory. 
(12) Section 402(b) of such Act remains a po-
tent symbol of injustice among Asian-Americans and 
civil rights groups. 
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS. 
Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 
U.S.C. 1981 note) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GEN-
ERAL.—’’; and 
(2) by striking subsection (b). 
SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. 
(a) APPLICATION.—For purposes of determining the 
application of the amendments made by the Civil Rights 
Act of 1991, such amendments shall apply to a case that 
was subject to section 402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 
1991 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
of this Act) in the same manner and to the same extent 
as such amendments apply to any case brought under title 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:43 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4275.IH
H4275
pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 
seq.) that was not subject to section 402(b) of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1991. 
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to alter, or shall be considered to be evidence 
of, congressional intent regarding the application of such 
amendments to any case that was not subject to section 
402(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:43 Apr 04, 2012
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H4275.IH
H4275
pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS