I 
113TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 4227 
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes 
to clarify appropriate liability standards for Federal antidiscrimination claims. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
MARCH 13, 2014 
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. NADLER, 
Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. 
SWALWELL of California, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ENYART, Ms. LEE of Cali-
fornia, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. GRAYSON, Ms. MOORE, 
Mr. POCAN, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, 
Ms. FUDGE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 
HOLT, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addi-
tion to the Committees on House Administration, the Judiciary, and 
Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently deter-
mined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
other statutes to clarify appropriate liability standards 
for Federal antidiscrimination claims. 
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 ‘‘Fair Employment Pro-
tection Act of 2014’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) Harassment is a widespread problem in 
workplaces in the United States. Surveys indicate 
that at least one-fourth of all working women and 
10 percent of men have experienced sexual harass-
ment on the job. 
(2) In fiscal year 2013, a combined total of over 
30,000 harassment charges were filed with the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 
State fair employment practices agencies. More than 
10,000 of these charges involved sexual harassment. 
(3) Women and people of color working in low- 
wage jobs are particularly vulnerable to harassment 
in the workplace. 
(4) In some industries harassment is even more 
widespread. For example, 80 percent of female farm- 
workers working in the fields in central California 
reported that they had experienced sexual harass-
ment. 
(5) Studies indicate that sexual harassment of 
women, including unwanted touching, grabbing, and 
stalking, is also common in male-dominated indus-
tries, such as construction, public safety, manufac-
turing, farming, and the high-tech industry. Harass-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ment in male-dominated industries operates as a 
barrier to women’s entry into higher-paying jobs. 
(6) Racial harassment remains a pervasive 
problem in the workplace in the United States. In 
fiscal year 2013, more than 11,000 of the charges 
of harassment filed with the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission and State fair employment 
practices agencies were charges of racial harass-
ment. 
(7) Research shows that workers in a wide 
spectrum of occupations, ranging from service and 
support positions to management and professional 
positions, report experiencing race-based harassment 
while on the job. 
(8) Harassment in the workplace is a persistent 
barrier to opportunity for people with disabilities. 
Harassment can result in workers with disabilities 
being forced off the job. Workplace harassment is 
used to send the message that workers with disabil-
ities do not belong at work. 
(9) Age discrimination continues to be a barrier 
to employment for older workers. Over one-third of 
older workers report that they or someone they know 
experienced age discrimination in the workplace. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(10) Three quarters of older Americans sur-
veyed are concerned that age may be an obstacle to 
finding work. 
(11) The Supreme Court’s decision in Vance v. 
Ball State University, No. 11–556, (June 24, 2013) 
significantly undermines protections against dis-
crimination that the Supreme Court established in 
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and 
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 
(1998), which held that an employer may be vicari-
ously liable under title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 for harassment of an employee by an indi-
vidual that has supervisory authority over that em-
ployee. 
(12) In Faragher and Ellerth, the Supreme 
Court held that employers will be subject to a strict 
liability standard when employees with supervisory 
authority engage in harassment that results in ‘‘tan-
gible employment actions.’’ However, in situations 
where ‘‘supervisors’’ engage in harassment that does 
not result in tangible employment actions, the Court 
explained, an employer can avoid vicarious liability 
by showing that— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(A) the employer exercised reasonable care 
to prevent and correct any harassing behavior; 
and 
(B) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to 
take advantage of the preventive or corrective 
opportunities that the employer provided. 
(13) Whether an employer should be vicariously 
liable for harassment is a functional analysis that is 
based not on the title of the harasser or the employ-
er’s job description for the harasser’s position but on 
the authority vested in that individual by the em-
ployer. 
(14) The Supreme Court holding in Vance lim-
its the category of individuals who are considered su-
pervisors and for which an employer may be held vi-
cariously liable under Faragher and Ellerth to those 
individuals that have authority to take tangible em-
ployment actions. This holding ignores the reality 
that employees with the authority to control their 
subordinates’ daily work should be included in that 
category, for which an employer may be held vicari-
ously liable, because such individuals are aided by 
that authority in perpetuating a discriminatory work 
environment. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(15) Individuals who direct the daily work ac-
tivities of employees but do not have the authority 
to take tangible employment actions against those 
employees are common in the workplace in the 
United States, particularly in industries that employ 
low-wage workers. Workers in industries including 
retail, restaurant, health care, housekeeping, and 
personal care, which may pay low wages and employ 
a large numbers of female workers, are particularly 
vulnerable to harassment by individuals who have 
the power to direct day-to-day work activities but 
lack the power to take tangible employment actions. 
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to clarify 
that an employer’s vicarious liability for harassment under 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimi-
nation in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Genetic Informa-
tion Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the Government Em-
ployee Rights Act of 1991, the Congressional Account-
ability Act of 1995, and title III of the United States Code 
extends to— 
(1) an individual with the authority to under-
take or recommend tangible employment actions af-
fecting the victim of the harassment; or 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
00:41 Mar 20, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4227.IH
H4227
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS