CIVIL RIGHTS: THE BATTLE OF THE BILLS

A major battle looms as Democratic leaders and some Republicans in Congress again try to pass a civil rights bill strongly opposed by President Bush and GOP leaders in both houses. The congressional plan, backed by traditional civil rights organizations, seeks to modify or reverse six 1989 Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the scope and effectiveness of laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Bush has offered his own, less sweeping bill, charging that the congressional version is so burdensome and the potential penalties for noncompliance so high that employers would have to use hiring quotas to avoid being sued.

BACKGROUND: The congressional version of the 1991 civil rights bill, known as H.R. 1, is more far-reaching than the one that sparked a bitter fight when it was considered last summer. For several months, Capitol Hill sponsors and the Administration negotiated on ways to overcome the President’s concerns. For example, language was added specifically saying that the bill did not require quotas and a cap on damage awards was included.

The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 62 to 34. The House vote was 273 to 154.

In October, however, Bush vetoed the bill. The Senate failed by one vote to override the veto, sustaining the President’s action on a 66-34 roll call. It would have required 67 votes to enact the measure into law over Bush’s objections. The favorable House vote on passage came within a dozen votes of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

The House Education and Labor Committee on March 13 approved by voice vote Congress’ version of the bill, as did the House Judiciary Committee on March 19 by a vote of 24 to 10.

THE OUTLOOK: The bill has been put on a fast track by the Democratic leadership for House consideration, probably early this month. Key proponents say it probably will be amended to win broader support, with a cap put on damage awards for sexual harassment or discrimination.

Senate approval--perhaps on a modified bill--is expected after House acts, with a final version of the bill likely to land on Bush’s desk by early summer. Assuming the congressional version remains largely intact, Bush is almost certain to veto the bill.

Some Capitol Hill optimists are hoping for compromise, but the odds are that Democratic advocates of the congressional bill and their GOP allies will have to gird for a second override vote this summer. While the outlook is uncertain, at this time Bush appears likely to prevail once again.

Highlights of the President’s bill:

* Bush’s bill would provide a new remedy for sexual harassment on the job but would require that a judge, not a jury, hear the case and sets a ceiling of $150,000 on damage awards. Women complaining of harassment, however, would have to use procedures set up by employers to resolve such issues before they could file suit.

* Like the congressional bill, the Administration proposal also would expand the scope of present law to ban racial discrimination in promotion, pay and other job practices as well as in hiring.

* It would partially restore a 1971 ruling overruled in 1989 by declaring that employers must carry the burden of proof to show that “business necessity” requires job practices that result in disproportionate exclusion of racial minorities and women from a work force. But it would leave intact other parts of the 1989 ruling that critics content make it more difficult for workers to achieve adequate remedies.

* The bill--like the congressional bill--would expand the period for employees to challenge job discrimination rather than impose strict limits on filing complaints as the law now provides.

Highlights of congressional version:

* Overall, the bill would make it easier for workers complaining of discrimination to get into federal court and make it easier for them to prove their case.

* New rights. Current law now provides that only racial minorities may sue for monetary damages for intentional job discrimination. The bill would extend that right to women, disabled persons and religious minorities, providing for the first time a strong remedy for sexual harassment in the workplace. The bill would allow juries to hear these damage suits.

* It would restore a 1971 Supreme Court decision, reversed in 1989, which allows workers t challenge employment practices that have the effect of excluding racial minorities or women from work force or limiting their numbers. If such a “disparate impact” can be proved by evidence other than a mere statistical disparity, the bill says that an employer must prove that the practices are justified by “business necessity” and bear a significant relationship to successful job performance.

* The bill would reverse another 1989 ruling by the Supreme Court which held that a federal law barring race discrimination applied only to hiring. Under the bill’s provisions, this law could be used to challenge bias in pay, promotion, firing or other job practices.

* The bill would allow some relief to workers where intentional discrimination is proven, even if it is not the main reason why they were not hired, denied promotion or discharged. This would upset another Supreme Court ruling which held that intentional discrimination is not illegal if it is not the chief motivating force for an employer’s action.

BIAS COMPLAINTS: THE NUMBER (Discrimination complaints peaked in 1984.)

Job discrimination complaints filed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act ‘81: 44,992 ‘82: 41,629 ‘83: 50,506 ‘84: 53,889 ‘85: 53,343 ‘86: 50,110 ‘87: 45,401 ‘88: 42,657 ‘89: 39,975 ‘90: 43,532 Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission