Bush, Senate Leaders Applaud Rights Bill Compromise : Bias: ‘Not a quota’ measure, President says. Kennedy calls it “a significant victory’ in discrimination battle.

President Bush and Senate leaders Friday hailed a compromise on civil rights legislation that would make it easier for workers to win discrimination suits and also would give victims of sex discrimination the right to sue for limited damages.

At a news conference, Bush asserted that the compromise is “going to hit a lick against discrimination in the workplace.” He said that he would “enthusiastically sign” the measure after its expected passage by Congress. The Senate is expected to formally approve it Monday, with House action to follow.

“It is not a quota bill,” the President declared in referring to his oft-repeated charge that a very similar measure, sponsored by Republican Sen. John C. Danforth of Missouri with the backing of many Democrats, would force employers to hire specific numbers of women and racial minorities.

The compromise agreement, reached Thursday night after 11 hours of negotiations involving top White House aides and key Republican and Democratic senators, broke a yearlong impasse punctuated by charges that Democrats favored unfair quotas and that Republicans were cynically using race as a political issue.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the chief Democratic negotiator, called the compromise “a significant victory for civil rights” that would reverse two Supreme Court decisions and restore workers’ rights to challenge discriminatory business practices.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said that the new bill “will untie the Gordian knot of civil rights--and without producing quotas.”

The compromise bill makes several major changes in federal anti-discrimination laws that will ease the way for workers seeking to prove that they have been discriminated against and increase the reward they can receive if they win in court.

The biggest change involves what lawyers call the “burden of proof”--the question of which side in a lawsuit has the job of proving its case. Under the bill, if a worker can show that a company’s hiring or promotion policies have had a discriminatory result, it is then up to the company to prove that the policies are justified. That had been the law from 1971 until 1989, but a Supreme Court decision shifted the rules, requiring workers to prove that a company’s policies are not justified, something that civil rights lawyers argue is often impossible to do.

To be legal, an employment policy that has a discriminatory result must be specifically related to the job and must be justified by a “business necessity,” the new bill says. But in a key concession by civil rights groups, the bill does not attempt to strictly define what constitutes “business necessity,” leaving that up to future court decisions.

A second key provision would increase the damages that can be won in cases of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment. Under current law, women subjected to discrimination can receive only awards of back pay.

And in cases in which a woman has been harassed--but not fired or denied a promotion--she is not entitled to cash awards under current law because she has not lost any wages. The new law would allow a woman in such a case to recover for other forms of damage, such as medical costs incurred because of stress and compensation for emotional harm.

In addition, the new law would allow such cases to be decided by juries, rather than by a judge. Business groups had lobbied furiously against that provision, fearing that juries in discrimination cases, too easily swayed by emotions, would be likely to vote for heavy damage awards.

The settlement did not do much to cool the political rhetoric over quotas and race as both sides began a debate over who had backed down in the negotiations and why.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), saying that the original legislation never was a quota bill, claimed that the Democrats had made only one concession--agreeing to a $300,000 limit on damages that victims of sex discrimination could seek. Many Democrats had sought no limit, and they vowed to lift the cap in separate legislation.

Mitchell asserted also that the White House had “retreated” on a key provision. It would bar employers’ use of hiring standards that appear to be neutral (such as height requirements or high school diplomas) but in practice would screen out women or racial minorities.

Mitchell said that the language changes on that point were made merely to give Bush a “fig leaf” to disguise his “retreat.”

He contended that the President capitulated because of concerns that defecting Republicans would help override a threatened veto of Danforth’s bill--and that a voter backlash was building against Bush’s alleged use of the race issue.

He said that the latter concern was heightened by the strong showing made Tuesday in the Louisiana gubernatorial primary by former klansman David Duke, an avowed Republican criticized by the national party for his racial statements.

Republicans acknowledged that Duke’s performance and the recent Senate hearings on sexual harassment charges against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had given momentum to the long-stalled civil rights bill. GOP sources conceded that Danforth may have rounded up enough fellow Republican senators to produce the 67 votes needed to override a veto.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) told the Associated Press that he and at least one other undecided GOP senator told Bush Wednesday that he could not count on their votes to sustain a veto of the Danforth bill. Warner said that he believes a third senator had given Bush a similar message.

On the other hand, GOP leadership sources asserted that Democrats had given up significant ground on the bill, too, largely because they were vulnerable on the quota issue and were pressured by small businesses worried about the impact of the Danforth measure.

Major business groups expressed deep concern about the compromise. They said that their chief worry is that, under the proposal, juries could award potentially devasting damages in discrimination cases.

“There’s potential for a liability explosion,” said Nancy Fulco, a labor lawyer with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Juries tend to go as high as they can (in awarding damages), and that’s still part of this bill.”

Michael E. Baroody, senior vice president with the National Assn. of Manufacturers, said that his organization’s 12,500 members generally have stepped up efforts to hire minorities and have devoted increasing attention to “managing diversity” in the workplace.

But Baroody contended that the compromise civil rights bill, by encouraging more job discrimination suits, would “strangle this diversity management impulse in its crib. It would drive people apart.”

The law would have little impact in California. Under state law, plaintiffs already may seek jury trials and punitive and compensatory damages.

Women’s groups also voiced opposition, based on the damage limits. Pam Hughes, spokeswoman for the American Assn. of University Women, said: “Overall, this is not a victory for women.”

Staff writers Michael Ross and David Lauter in Washington, Stuart Silverstein in Los Angeles and Michael Flagg in Orange County contributed to this story.

Civil Rights Compromise

Here is a summary of the key points contained in the compromise civil rights legislation endorsed by President Bush and leaders of Congress, and how they compare with current law. DAMAGES:

Current law: Victims of intentional discrimination based on sex, religion or disability are limited to recovering back pay.

Compromise legislation: Victims of intentional discrimination or harassment based on sex, religion or disability may seek punitive and compensatory damages.

Current law: Victims of intentional discrimination based on race may seek unlimited damages.

Compromise legislation: Damages capped at $50,000 for firms with 100 or fewer employees, at $100,000 for firms with between 100 and 200 employees, $200,000 for firms with between 200 and 500 employees, and $300,000 for firms with more than 500 employees. DISPARATE IMPACT:

Current law: Under Wards Cove Packing Co. vs. Antonio decision, burden of proof falls on employee to demonstrate there is no business necessity for practice with discriminatory effect.

Compromise legislation: Burden of proof falls on employers to demonstrate that any employment practice with discriminatory effect is job related for position in question and constitutes a business necessity. Practice is unlawful if employee demonstrates another practice would have a less discriminatory effect and employer fails to adopt it. ON-THE-JOB DISCRIMINATION:

Current law: Under Patterson vs. McLean Credit decision, only race discrimination that occurs in the making of contracts, or hiring, is illegal.

Compromise legislation: Race discrimination occuring on the job is illegal. MIXED MOTIVE:

Current law: Under Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins decision, “mixed motive” discrimination by employers was found lawful.

Compromise legislation: Any discriminatory factors in job decisions are illegal, even if a decision is justified by other factors. APPLICATION TO CONGRESS:

Current law: Congressional employees were not covered by Title VII protections.

Compromise legislation: Protections extend to employees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each body will define rules for dealing with discrimination claims.

Source: Times Washington Bureau