Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill bars federal courts from awarding damages that project a plaintiff's future earning potential using calculations that take into account the plaintiff's actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics). It requires the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance within 180 days for forensic economists to produce inclusive future earnings tables that do not rely on those characteristics, and directs the Secretary of Labor and Attorney General to give similar guidance to States.
Whether barring use of demographic-based earnings tables helps or harms plaintiffs in discrimination and employment cases.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive prohibition on the use of specified protected characteristics in projected future-earnings calculations in federal civil damages awards and pairs that prohibition with administrative directives, studies, and training requirements.
This bill bars federal courts from awarding damages that project a plaintiff's future earning potential using calculations that take into account the plaintiff's actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or sex (including gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics).
It requires the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance within 180 days for forensic economists to produce inclusive future earnings tables that do not rely on those characteristics, and directs the Secretary of Labor and Attorney General to give similar guidance to States.
The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must study and report on federal damage awards and on how to treat age and disability in future-earnings calculations, and the Federal Judicial Center must train federal judges on implementing the Act.
Content-wise, the bill is a narrowly tailored statutory change with modest administrative requirements, which tends to favor legislative traction. Counterbalancing that, it centrally addresses race, gender, and sexual orientation in legal remedies — topics that can mobilize opposition and complicate consensus. Its short, technical form and built‑in guidance/study approach lower implementation risk, but the politically sensitive subject raises obstacles, especially in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive prohibition on the use of specified protected characteristics in projected future-earnings calculations in federal civil damages awards and pairs that prohibition with administrative directives, studies, and training requirements. It assigns responsibilities and deadlines but leaves several implementation and resourcing details unspecified.
Whether barring use of demographic-based earnings tables helps or harms plaintiffs in discrimination and employment cases.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether barring use of demographic-based earnings tables helps or harms plaintiffs in discrimination and employment cases.
This persona would be wary of the bill.
They would acknowledge that removing reliance on group-based averages could be intended to avoid reinforcing disparities, but worry the prohibition could make it harder for plaintiffs to document and recover economic harms tied to systemic discrimination.
They would note the bill’s rule of construction but remain concerned that excluding group-level earnings data from projections could reduce compensatory awards in discrimination and employment cases.
This persona would view the bill as a mixed, pragmatic effort to prevent future-earnings calculations from embedding demographic bias while attempting to preserve courts’ ability to award damages under civil rights law.
They would appreciate the focus on guidance, study, and judge training, but be cautious about unintended consequences for quantifying damages in employment-discrimination and tort cases.
They would want clear rules so that courts can still compensate plaintiffs fairly without perpetuating stereotypes.
This persona would generally view the bill favorably as a measure to ensure individuals are compensated based on their own merits, not on demographic averages, and to prevent courts from embedding group-based disparities into damage awards.
They would welcome federal guidance that forces forensic economists to avoid using race- or sex-based differentials in future-earnings tables.
They would see the training and studies as reasonable oversight and appreciate the rule of construction that does not prohibit damages simply because a plaintiff is in a protected class.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content-wise, the bill is a narrowly tailored statutory change with modest administrative requirements, which tends to favor legislative traction. Counterbalancing that, it centrally addresses race, gender, and sexual orientation in legal remedies — topics that can mobilize opposition and complicate consensus. Its short, technical form and built‑in guidance/study approach lower implementation risk, but the politically sensitive subject raises obstacles, especially in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether barring use of demographic-based earnings tables helps or harms plaintiffs in discrimination and employment cases.
Content-wise, the bill is a narrowly tailored statutory change with modest administrative requirements, which tends to favor legislative tr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a specific substantive prohibition on the use of specified protected characteristics in projected future-earnings calculations in federal civil damages aw…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.