Bill Overview
Title: Justice for All Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or race-related characteristics in schools, businesses, federally funded programs, and other settings. It also provides statutory authority for and expands the types of civil actions that may be brought for violations. For example, the bill expands provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so as to (1) prohibit federally funded programs from discriminating based on sex or religion; and (2) prohibit public accommodations, including stores and transit services, from discriminating based on sex. The bill defines sex to include sex stereotypes, pregnancy, childbirth, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. It also expands the definition of race to include traits that have been historically associated with race (e.g., natural hair textures). The expanded definitions apply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act (discrimination in public and private housing), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs). Further, the bill provides statutory authority for disparate impact or intentional discrimination claims under the aforementioned acts, as well as the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (discrimination based on age by federally funded programs) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (discrimination based on disability by federally funded programs). The bill also includes other provisions that address (1) profiling by law enforcement officers, (2) employer liability with respect to civil rights violations, (3) predispute arbitration agreements in civil rights cases, and (4) governmental immunity in suits involving constitutional violations.
Sponsors: Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-13]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals worldwide potentially impacted by anti-discrimination protections based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or race-related characteristics.
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or race-related characteristics in multiple settings, which includes a range of demographics that are often marginalized.
- The bill applies to schools, businesses, federally funded programs, and includes provisions related to public accommodations, this broad scope means it potentially affects anyone who interacts with these institutions or entities, essentially a large portion of the population.
- The bill addresses and expands the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act, and Title IX, and applies to issues like employment, education, housing, and law enforcement, which are universal societal elements impacting most people.
- Given the global variations in legal structures and discrimination protections, the impact might be most profound in countries with less robust anti-discrimination policies, or in countries that follow US legislative progress closely.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at reducing discrimination, which is a pervasive issue impacting a wide range of people, especially those in marginalized communities.
- The focus on expanding protections in education, housing, and public accommodations suggests significant benefits for communities historically facing discrimination.
- With a large potential coverage under schools, businesses, and federally funded programs, a substantial percentage of the population might experience a sense of improved fairness and safety.
- Because the policy targets multiple forms of discrimination, individuals experiencing intersectionality in their identities would likely see the highest benefits.
- The budget constraints indicate that the policy implementation might focus on key high-impact areas and possibly phased enforcement to remain cost-effective.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could make schools safer and more inclusive environments, especially for LGBTQ+ students.
- I hope it provides more resources for diversity training in schools.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Store Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to better corporate training and reduce bias in hiring and promotions.
- Hopefully, this helps improve perspectives on race in my community.
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 | 7 |
Software Developer (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might help tech companies become more inclusive and prevent harassment based on gender.
- It's reassuring to have legal backing for gender identity protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Civil Rights Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expanded definitions will aid in fighting housing discrimination, which remains a significant issue.
- This could lead to substantial legal victories in civil rights cases.
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 |
Retired Police Officer (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could standardize training and reduce racial profiling in law enforcement.
- It may shift community relationships positively over time.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student leader, I see this as a tool for fostering diversity and equality on campus.
- It promises to help in addressing subtle biases in academic environments.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If effectively implemented, this act might reduce discrimination for immigrant entrepreneurs.
- I'm hopeful that this law encourages fair business practices.
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 | 8 | 5 |
HR Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act might compel tech companies to genuinely adhere to anti-discrimination policies.
- It is a step towards increasing accountability in workplace environments.
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 |
Retired Judge (New York, NY)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will provide courts more robust tools to adjudicate on discrimination cases.
- It reflects a necessary progression of legal frameworks to match societal needs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Barista (Chicago, IL)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially make workplaces safer and more respectful for people like me.
- I'm hoping this legislation leads to more equitable treatment in service jobs.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $760000000 (Low: $610000000, High: $1020000000)
Year 3: $770000000 (Low: $620000000, High: $1040000000)
Year 5: $800000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 10: $850000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The broad scope of this bill means that nearly every American institution will be affected, requiring extensive public education and compliance monitoring.
- The historical impacts of similar expansions in civil rights legislation, such as those under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provide case studies both in potential cost and in long-term societal benefits.
- Interpreting the expanded definitions and their applicability might lead to legal challenges that will increase litigation costs in the short term.