I 
115TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 1646 
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 
MARCH 21, 2017 
Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. ROKITA) in-
troduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Edu-
cation 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 prac-
tices that are in compliance with Federal regulations, 
and State laws, in certain areas. 
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 ‘‘Certainty in Enforce-
ment Act of 2017’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:16 Mar 23, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1646.IH
H1646
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission (EEOC) is one of several agencies respon-
sible 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 in-
terests of workers and employers are being served. 
(2) In 1964 Congress consciously denied the 
EEOC the power to issue regulations pursuant to 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has re-
frained from granting it that power ever since. Nev-
ertheless, like any other agency charged with en-
forcement, the EEOC may promulgate guidance 
under the statutes it enforces, but that guidance 
cannot require more than the statute it is enforcing 
requires and does not have the force of law. In some 
cases the EEOC’s guidances have been rejected by 
the courts. 
(3) In 2012 the EEOC promulgated enforce-
ment guidance regarding the use of criminal back-
ground checks that put employers in the position of 
acting contrary to Federal, State, and local laws 
that require employers to conduct or act on criminal 
background checks for certain positions, such as 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:16 Mar 23, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1646.IH
H1646
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
public safety officers, teachers, and daycare pro-
viders. 
(4) In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., a case chal-
lenging Peoplemark’s use of criminal background 
checks in making employment decisions, the Court 
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in October 2013 af-
firmed an award of $751,942 against the EEOC for 
prevailing defendant Peoplemark’s attorney’s and ex-
pert fees. 
(5) In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Cor-
poration, 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 de-
cision 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 fol-
lowing: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:16 Mar 23, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1646.IH
H1646
lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS