Bill Overview
Title: Fair Calculations in Civil Damages Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill prohibits courts from awarding damages to plaintiffs in civil actions using a calculation for projected future earning potential that takes into account a plaintiff's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. The bill requires the Department of Labor to develop guidance for economists to develop future earnings tables that do not rely on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. Additionally, Labor and the Department of Justice must develop guidance for states on how to calculate future earnings in state tort proceedings in a manner that is free of such biases. The Judicial Conference of the United States must report on damages awarded under federal law for personal injury, employment discrimination, tort damages, and cases involving protected classes of individuals sharing a common characteristic or identity who are legally protected against discrimination. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts must submit recommendations to ensure that future earnings calculations that take into account age and disability do not conflict with federal equal protection laws. The bill requires the Federal Judicial Center to train federal judges on how to implement this bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in civil actions for damages where future earning potential is considered
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill affects individuals involved in civil lawsuits where damages are awarded based on future earning potential.
- It particularly impacts individuals who are part of demographic groups such as race or gender that might have been used to calculate potential earnings in a biased manner.
- Legal professionals, including judges and economists, will need to adjust their methodologies and understandings in court cases and damage calculations.
- This will affect employers and insurance companies involved in providing settlements.
- The broader society, which is moving towards increased fairness in legal compensation, will also feel the long-term impacts.
Reasoning
- The proposed policy is designed to eliminate bias in civil damage awards relating to future earnings by prohibiting the use of demographics such as race, gender, and sexual orientation in calculations. This affects many individuals involved in civil litigation, particularly those belonging to historically marginalized groups. The policy budget and scope over ten years are significant, but targeting 10 million individuals suggests that while direct impact per person may be limited, it could result in broader systemic change over time.
- Given the diversity of the affected individuals — ranging from plaintiffs in civil suits to legal professionals — the impact will vary greatly depending on one’s direct involvement with the court system and their demographic profile. It's important to cover a variety of scenarios from individuals directly benefiting from fairer calculations, to those indirectly affected such as legal professionals and economists who need to adapt to new methodologies.
- While the budget is limited relative to the potentially large affected population, it is likely focused on systemic changes and supporting the training of legal professionals. Personal day-to-day changes might thus be subtle but over long-term could improve societal fairness, enhancing wellbeing especially among previously disadvantaged groups.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is beneficial. It ensures that individuals like me won't be unfairly judged based on race or gender when calculating compensation.
- I'm hopeful that this policy will lead to a more transparent and equitable legal system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that takes bias out of legal decisions is a plus. It's hard to believe this was still happening in 2023.
- This reform is long overdue, and it gives me more confidence in the legal system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require me to adjust my approach to cases, but it's necessary for fairness.
- It's going to bring a much-needed change to the system; I only hope the training is thorough and practical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Economist (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This greatly influences my work. I'll need to redevelop my methodologies.
- While challenging, it's ultimately a step towards unbiased calculations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about the impact of this policy, changes are often slow to materialize.
- Hopeful for the future though, as these issues are being addressed more directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lawyer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my values as a lawyer striving for justice.
- It adds complexity to cases initially, but it's necessary for fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
HR Manager at Insurance Firm (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely change how we manage claims, requiring updates in policy formulation.
- Ethically, it's the right direction ensuring fairer outcomes for all employees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Occupational Therapist (Portland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports the goals I have as part of my practice promoting unbiased care.
- It's uplifting; this legislation speaks to an ethical stance that aligns with modern practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Insurance Underwriter (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a complex shift, but managing risk requires constant adaptation.
- These changes might increase fairness, but the transitional costs will need careful handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Policy Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aims to rectify systemic issues, but implementation has to be meticulous.
- While I may not be directly affected, observing the larger implications matters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring unbiased calculation of future earnings is critical to removing systemic biases that affect several demographic groups.
- The administrative burden of developing and implementing new guidelines and tables could be significant initially but may decrease over time.
- Judicial training will be essential to the successful implementation of the new calculation requirements.
- The long-term benefits in fairness might balance and outweigh the initial implementation costs.