Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Description: This bill provides for coverage of certain employees of the District of Columbia under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977. The act prohibits discrimination in the District on the basis of certain protected characteristics (e.g., race) in a variety of settings, including employment. The bill specifies that nonjudicial employees of the District of Columbia courts and employees of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service shall be considered to be employees, and the courts and public defender service shall be considered to be employers, under the act. The bill also excludes complaints of discrimination that are filed against the courts or public defender service from the District's procedures for handling complaints of governmental discrimination.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by the non-discrimination protections provided by the DC Human Rights Act
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill covers nonjudicial employees of the District of Columbia courts and the DC Public Defender Service, extending employment protections under the DC Human Rights Act of 1977.
- The DC Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on certain protected characteristics including race, enabling these individuals to seek recourse if discrimination occurs.
- The employment scope is limited to nonjudicial employees specifically in the District of Columbia, reflecting local impact.
- The DC Human Rights Act applies protections broadly, suggesting potential relevance to other similar local government entities, though this bill is specific to DC courts and public defenders.
Reasoning
- The policy is limited to DC nonjudicial employees in courts and public defender services, narrowing the immediate impact regionally.
- Budget constraints suggest a phased or prioritized policy rollout, targeting immediate and high-impact cases initially.
- Non-discrimination impacts can elevate perceived job security and satisfaction, with varying responses depending on individual awareness and experiences of discrimination.
- The policy in itself doesn't increase overall employment but can influence job satisfaction and perceived well-being, which might improve retention rates.
- Indirect impacts on the broader community (e.g., families, residents of DC) through improvements in workplace equality may not be immediately measurable but have long-term benefits.
Simulated Interviews
clerk at DC courts (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy might finally give us a voice and protection in our workplace.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
janitor at Public Defender Service (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to feel protected, but I'm not sure how much it will change my day-to-day life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
legal assistant at a DC court (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a step in the right direction for creating a more inclusive workplace.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
court reporter (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already feel treated well, but it's good to know there's a formal recourse option now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
security staff at the Public Defender Service (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy will affect me much at this point in my career.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
paralegal at the Public Defender Service (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see measures against discrimination, it makes me more hopeful about continuing my career here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
IT support for DC Courts (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate any effort to make the workplace fairer, as I've seen a lot of inequality.
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 | 7 | 5 |
translator for DC courts (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that I can now focus on my work with less worry about potential bias.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
administrative assistant at Public Defender Service (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives me confidence that I won't be sidelined because of some unfair practises.
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 | 7 | 5 |
budget analyst for DC courts (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have seen colleagues struggle with unfair treatments, this policy is overdue as a protective measure.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 2: $250000 (Low: $100000, High: $400000)
Year 3: $250000 (Low: $100000, High: $400000)
Year 5: $200000 (Low: $80000, High: $320000)
Year 10: $150000 (Low: $50000, High: $250000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill does not directly involve federal entities, affecting only DC local judiciary-related bodies.
- The cost primarily involves ensuring proper legal interpretation and compliance mechanisms.
- Potential for future administrative costs or litigation costs depending upon uptake and engagement by affected employees.