Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill bars federal courts from using calculations of a plaintiff’s projected future earnings that take into account the plaintiff’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or sex (defined to include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics). It requires the Secretary of Labor (and the Attorney General for state guidance) to issue guidance within 180 days for developing “inclusive future earnings tables” that do not rely on those characteristics.
Whether banning race/sex from future-earnings calculations helps fairness (conservative view) or harms remedies for discrimination victims (liberal view).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and attaches administrative and reporting tasks to support implementation, but it leaves important operational and fiscal details unspecified.
This bill bars federal courts from using calculations of a plaintiff’s projected future earnings that take into account the plaintiff’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or sex (defined to include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics).
It requires the Secretary of Labor (and the Attorney General for state guidance) to issue guidance within 180 days for developing “inclusive future earnings tables” that do not rely on those characteristics.
The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must study federal damages data and produce reports on damages by case type and protected class and on how to calculate future earnings that take into account age and disability without conflicting with equal protection.
Content-wise the bill is modest in cost and scope, which favors enactment, but it touches on charged identity subjects (race, gender identity, sexual orientation) and affects litigation outcomes — inviting organized opposition from interested stakeholders. The requirement for federal guidance and studies is noncontroversial, but the immediate prohibition in federal courts is the clearest friction point. Relative ease in the House is offset by higher Senate hurdles and the need for cross-chamber compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and attaches administrative and reporting tasks to support implementation, but it leaves important operational and fiscal details unspecified.
Whether banning race/sex from future-earnings calculations helps fairness (conservative view) or harms remedies for discrimination victims (liberal view).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether banning race/sex from future-earnings calculations helps fairness (conservative view) or harms remedies for discrimination victims (liberal view).
A mainstream liberal would likely be skeptical of this bill.
While they would welcome efforts to eliminate stereotypical or explicitly discriminatory assumptions, they would be concerned that banning any use of race or sex in future-earnings calculations could systematically undercompensate victims of discrimination by preventing courts from accounting for real, empirically documented disparities.
They would look closely at the bill’s carve-out language for federal civil-rights damages and the planned studies, and would want stronger safeguards so victims of employment or other discrimination can recover full damages that reflect past and ongoing harms.
A centrist would view the bill as a mixed, pragmatic reform: it addresses legitimate concerns about biased or stereotyped assumptions in economic tables, but it also raises practical questions about whether victims will be fairly compensated in complex economic reality.
They would value the guidance, studies, and training as sensible steps to create consistent methodology, while wanting careful implementation to avoid unintended consequences.
Overall a centrist would neither strongly support nor outright oppose the bill without clarifications and guardrails to preserve remedies for provable discrimination.
A mainstream conservative would likely view this bill favorably as advancing a colorblind approach to damages calculations and preventing courts from factoring protected-class characteristics into economic awards.
They would appreciate the move toward uniform federal guidance and training and see a potential to limit awards that they view as based on group identity rather than individual loss.
Some conservatives would, however, flag federal involvement in setting standards for state tort practice as an overreach and seek limits on federal preemption or administrative burden.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content-wise the bill is modest in cost and scope, which favors enactment, but it touches on charged identity subjects (race, gender identity, sexual orientation) and affects litigation outcomes — inviting organized opposition from interested stakeholders. The requirement for federal guidance and studies is noncontroversial, but the immediate prohibition in federal courts is the clearest friction point. Relative ease in the House is offset by higher Senate hurdles and the need for cross-chamber compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether banning race/sex from future-earnings calculations helps fairness (conservative view) or harms remedies for discrimination victims…
Content-wise the bill is modest in cost and scope, which favors enactment, but it touches on charged identity subjects (race, gender identi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and attaches administrative and reporting tasks to support implementation, but it leaves important operational and fiscal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.