Date: 2016-09-07
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. again. as I have indicated. there are victims that are not in the purview or even in the eyesight of this legislation that will be harmed by this legislation. The Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would address the problematic concern with H.R. 5063. which would only provide an exemption for payments to parties. other than the government. to provide restitution for actual harm directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment. The Jackson Lee amendment would provide an exemption for cases where funds are necessary to remedy generalized harm. other than for restitution. to specific or immediately identifiable victims. In particular. Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would allow the Federal Government to engage with third parties that help carry out settlement agreementsagain. settlement agreementsdollars that are under the purview of the settlement and that are minute in distribution. indicated 1.1 percent. in furtherance of resolution of the civil action or potential civil action in specific relation to sexual harassment. violence. or discrimination in the workplace. Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would carve out this additional exception to protect such actions and the ability to provide the mediators or other third parties to intervene on behalf of civil action litigants. It is clear that we have had a number of civil rights violations in this country. We are not yet through with overcoming discrimination in many aspects of life. particularly in workplace discrimination. For instance. in the settlement of an EEOC sexual harassment case of female laundry workers. a consent decree resolving the case provides that in addition to paying $582.000. Suffolk Laundry will adopt new procedures to prevent sexual harassment and will train its managers and staff on identifying and preventing sexual harassment and retaliation. The policies and staff training will be available in Spanish. EEOC will monitor Suffolk Laundrys compliance with these obligations and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a period of 4 years. Because of this consent decree. these women will receive due compensation for the abuse they suffered. and there is confidence. with the consent decree in place and the conditions of that consent decree. that no more employees will be victimized in the future. In another example of an EEOC sex discrimination lawsuitand so there will be those that will help implement this settlementthe Cintas Corporation settled to pay $1.5 million. The corporation entered into a further agreement: to hire an outside expert to reevaluate the criteria used to screen. interview. and select employees and the interview guides used in employee hiring. to provide training to the individuals involved in the selection of employees. whereby such training would cover record retention and an explanation of what constitutes an unlawful employment practice under title VII. to continue to provide diversity. harassment. and antidiscrimination training annually to employees. to post a notice informing employees that Federal law prohibits discrimination. and to report to EEOC over an approximate 28month period information and materials on training programs. recruiting logs. descriptions. and explanations for any changes. I would argue the point that this helps to promote the antidiscrimination necessary to correct the pathway that some have found their way in. The Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would create an appropriate exemption to the absolute block and prohibition that the underlying legislation provides. Mr. Chair. the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 exempts from H.R. 5063 settlement agreements that resolves a civil action or potential civil action in relation to sexual harassment. violence. or discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Chair. H.R. 5063 as currently drafted is flawed and misguided. This bill seeks to exempt only those payments to parties other than the government to provide restitution for actual harm "directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment." A few months ago we saw that the Justice Department filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina and other parties declaring North Carolina House Bill 2s restroom restriction unlawfully discriminatory. Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated that this complaint was about "a great deal more than just bathrooms." She explained: "This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we. as a people and as a country. have enacted to protect themindeed. to protect all of us. And its about the founding ideals that have led this countryhaltingly but inexorablyin the direction of fairness. inclusion and equality for all Americans." Enforcing these rights is as important today as they were during the enactment of the Civil Rights Act over fifty years ago. H.R. 5063 would prohibit remediation of generalized harm in civil rights cases. restricting relief for nonparties to the litigation and nonidentifiable victims of discrimination. Professor David Uhlmann observed during last months hearing on this bill "fails to adequately address the fact that generalized harm arises in civil cases." including cases involving "harm to our communities . . . that cannot be addressed by restitution." In these cases. Professor Uhlmann concluded. thirdparty payments are appropriate. Yet. the Majority witness. Daniel Lungren. specifically testified on behalf of the Chamber that the bill should prohibit "the U.S. government from entering into a settlement agreement requiring a defendant to donate to an organization or individual not a party to the litigation." The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 would remedy this flaw by creating an exception to cases where settlement funds are directed to the remediation of generalized harm other than restitution to identifiable victims. For instance. in the settlement of an EEOC sexual harassment case of female laundry workers and a consent decree resolving the case provides that: In addition to paying $582.000. Suffolk Laundry will adopt new procedures to prevent sexual harassment and will train its managers and staff on identifying and preventing sexual harassment and retaliation. The policies and staff training will be available in Spanish. EEOC will monitor Suffolk Laundrys compliance with these obligations and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a period of four years. Because of this consent decree. these women will receive due compensation for the abuse they suffered and. there is confidence. with the consent decree in place and the conditions of that consent decree. that no more employees will be victimized in the future. In another example of an EEOC sex discrimination lawsuit where Cintas Corporation settled to pay $1.5 million. the corporation entered into a further agreement: To hire an outside expert to revalidate the criteria used to I screen. interview and select employees and the interview guides used in employee hiring. To provide training to the individuals involved in the selection of employees. whereby such training would cover record retention and an explanation of what constitutes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. To continue to provide diversity. harassment and antidiscrimination training annually to employees. To post a notice informing employees that federal law prohibits discrimination. and to report to EEOC over an approximate 28month period information and materials on training programs. recruiting logs. descriptions and explanations for any changes made to the employee hiring process. its expert revalidation findings. unprivileged materials and reports from any audits made of a facilitys employee hiring or recruitment methods or practices. should an audit be done. record retention and reporting on applicant data. According to EEOC General Counsel. David Lopez. the injunctive relief obtained provides confidence and a strong foundation for eliminating barriers in recruiting and hiring women and will prevent the reoccurrence of this type of situation. The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4 would have a direct impact on these very types of cases by providing an exception to cases where funds are directed to the remediation of generalized harm. as highlighted in the above agreements that falls within the category of other than direct restitution to the identifiable victims. Accordingly. I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.