House Panel OKs Anti-Bias Bill Opposed by Bush

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a major civil rights bill to curb job discrimination and brushed aside Bush Administration warnings that the legislation will lead to hiring quotas.

“We did not bring forth a bill that will lead to quotas or any danger of quotas,” Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), the bill’s sponsor, said before the panel approved the measure, 24 to 12.

Civil rights forces are pushing for floor action on the bill as early as next week. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said last week that a floor vote would not be held until after lawmakers return from their August recess.

By wide margins, committee Democrats beat back Republican-sponsored amendments designed to limit damages that courts may award to victims of discrimination and to tighten the rules governing fair-hiring lawsuits.

The bill, which tops the civil rights movement’s legislative agenda, would effectively reverse five Supreme Court decisions from last year. Provisions range from a ban on racial harassment in the workplace to punitive damages for discrimination victims in extreme cases.

The most controversial provision was designed to reverse a Supreme Court ruling that favors companies in certain discrimination lawsuits.

Until last year, companies could win such suits if they proved that the employment practices leading to the disparity were required by “business necessity.” The new ruling makes it easier for employers, placing on those filing suit the burden of proving that the practices in question are not business necessities.

The Bush Administration and a number of businesses object that the bill’s definition of business necessity combined with provisions for damages will lead to a jump in discrimination lawsuits by lawyers eager to share in court judgments.

The critics say that companies will adopt the practice of hiring by racial and ethnic quotas as a means of insulating themselves from such lawsuits.

“This should really be called the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ full employment act of 1990,” Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) told the committee.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a supporter of the bill, conceded that “there are horror stories about over-enforcement” of similar laws but added that such instances were rare and those intent on discriminating found ways to get away with it.

“The advantage is overwhelmingly with the sophisticated bigot,” he said.