Bill Overview
Title: To codify the Department of Labor rule regarding religious exemptions to the equal opportunity clause, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the Department of Labor rule issued on December 9, 2020, entitled Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause's Religious Exemption . (Generally, the rule addresses religious exemptions to certain anti-discrimination provisions in relation to federal procurement.)
Sponsors: Rep. Good, Bob [R-VA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People working for federal contractors
Estimated Size: 34000000
- The bill concerns the Department of Labor rule providing religious exemptions in relation to the Equal Opportunity Clause, mainly affecting federal procurement.
- Organizations engaging in federal procurement who claim religious exemptions may be directly impacted by these legislative changes.
- Employees within those organizations who might be subject to any changes in anti-discrimination protections due to religious exemptions will be impacted.
- The broader workforce employed by federal contractors may also indirectly feel the effects of these changes as it can influence contractual terms and workplace policies.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts employees working for federal contractors, especially those in organizations that may claim religious exemptions.
- We anticipate most significant effects on employees who identify as part of a marginalized group potentially facing discrimination.
- The budget implies limited reach; impacts may be felt by a minority of higher profile or larger contractors, especially ones with extensive interfaces with governmental work.
- Given the total population of employees in federal contracting (34 million), only a small subset will experience a direct impact due to budget constraints and specificity of application - primarily focused around policy alterations within specific organizations.
- The mixed-range of perspectives can best be gauged by interviewing individuals in varying roles and contexts, from unaffected individuals to those who may risk experiencing discrimination changes.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager, Federal Contractor (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might influence workplace guidelines but I doubt it affects my role directly.
- I'm more concerned about the logistics and delivery of project outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer, Religious-affiliated Organization (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is worry at my workplace about which civil rights exemptions the organization might now claim.
- Transparency regarding these exemptions could influence the work culture and my engagement in the job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
HR Manager, Federal Contractor (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Initially concerned this may impact existing policies on non-discrimination or equal employment.
- Ensuring policy adjustments are compliant is critical; could face morale issues among coworkers if not.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
CEO, Small Business Dealing with Federal Projects (Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could bring changes but largely in legal frameworks.
- Does not foresee direct influence barring misunderstandings in Human Resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Diversity Officer, Large Non-profit Contractor (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Major considerations regarding implications; fear some adaptations may embolden discriminatory practices.
- Strong commitment to ensuring protective measures remain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Procurement Officer, Federal Agency (Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious to see actual case decisions that may diverge valuations based on policy.
- My influence is indirect; however, consistency in law application is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Research Scientist, University-associated Contractor (Ohio)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy indirectly affects us unless there are clear shifts in contract terms.
- I believe in nurturing workplace parity; conscious items might arise if religious exceptions broaden ambiguously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired, Former Federal Policy Analyst (Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a shift of legal paradigm without predicted sizable immediate change impacts.
- Given my status as retired, personal engagement does not alter directly maneuvers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Legal Advisor, Federal Aerospace Contractor (Georgia)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Complexity arises if certain legal expectations reinterpret religious freedoms to isolate workforce diversification.
- Focus on maintaining adherence to a non-discriminatory environment is paramount amidst any policy form shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Intern, Small Tech Start-up Contractor (Utah)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At entry level, expect policy impacts to be low but interested to see if team culture shifts.
- Open to adapting based on policy particulars as long as company ethos remains intact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy change involves regulatory and administrative adjustments, primarily within the Department of Labor.
- Implementation could lead to legal challenges regarding the balance of religious freedom and anti-discrimination principles.
- The precise financial impact is difficult to determine due to indirect and non-monetary influences on the economic environment.