A substitute amendment containing the recommendations of the Administration, and an additional prohibition against "race norming" of employment test results. The amendment would not authorize compensatory and punative damages for intentional employment discrimination, but would provide for monetary relief up to $150,000 in certain cases of harassment. The amendment would also maintain the recent Supreme Court interpretation of what constitutes a "business necessity" regarding employment practices which have a disparate impact upon women or minorities. The amendment does not address the recent Supreme Court decision which held that discriminatory employment practices are not violations of the law if such discrimination is a contributing but not a primary motivating factor for such practices. The amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court finding that the statute of limitations for challenges to discriminatory practices begins when the practice is adopted, rather than when harm to a plaintiff is alleged.

Ask AI
Amendment Number
92
Description
A substitute amendment containing the recommendations of the Administration, and an additional prohibition against "race norming" of employment test results. The amendment would not authorize compensatory and punative damages for intentional employment discrimination, but would provide for monetary relief up to $150,000 in certain cases of harassment. The amendment would also maintain the recent Supreme Court interpretation of what constitutes a "business necessity" regarding employment practices which have a disparate impact upon women or minorities. The amendment does not address the recent Supreme Court decision which held that discriminatory employment practices are not violations of the law if such discrimination is a contributing but not a primary motivating factor for such practices. The amendment reaffirms the Supreme Court finding that the statute of limitations for challenges to discriminatory practices begins when the practice is adopted, rather than when harm to a plaintiff is alleged.
Purpose
Amendment in the nature of a substitute contained the President's proposal and sought to: provide equitable relief up to $150,000 (after the use of in-house resolution procedures) for victims of job harrassment based on race, sex, color, national origin, and religion; prohibit the use of "race norming" in employment test scores; and codify the Griggs decision which defines "business necessity" in relation to employment practices which have a disparate impact on certain employees.
Congress
102
Type
HAMDT
Latest Action Date
Jun 4, 1991
Latest Action Text
On agreeing to the Michel amendment (A002) Failed by recorded vote: 162 - 266 (Roll no. 128).
Latest Action Time
21:28:31
Submitted Date
Jun 4, 1991
Chamber
House of Representatives
Update Date
Jun 7, 2021
Amendment 92 — Informed