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 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 2014’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:10 Sep 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5423.IH
H5423
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
(1) The Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission (EEOC) has, since 1965, been responsible 
for enforcing Federal laws against employment dis-
crimination, 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) 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 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 criminal back-
ground checks for certain positions, such as public 
safety officers, teachers, and daycare providers. 
(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. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:10 Sep 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5423.IH
H5423
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
(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: 
‘‘(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 ap-
prenticeships 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, polic-
VerDate 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
ing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and 
fiduciary duties.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:10 Sep 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H5423.IH
H5423
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS