Bill Overview
Title: EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the requirement that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) vote on whether to commence, intervene, or otherwise participate in certain types of litigation, including cases involving issues in which the commission has taken a position that is contrary to the corresponding judicial precedent. (The EEOC adopted a similar resolution in January 2021.) The commission must post information relating to such cases and associated votes on its website.
Sponsors: Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by EEOC litigation and employment discrimination laws
Estimated Size: 160000000
- The EEOC oversees matters related to employment discrimination, and thus, employees and employers are directly impacted by its actions.
- The bill involves litigation processes, which means parties involved in litigation—specifically those related to employment discrimination—are directly impacted.
- The added transparency and accountability measures could affect how employers and employees perceive the EEOC and their interactions with it.
- By requiring public disclosure of litigation actions, the bill impacts the EEOC's functioning and potentially its effectiveness in handling discrimination cases.
- The general public, especially those interested in employment law and anti-discrimination measures, may also be indirectly impacted by this increased transparency.
Reasoning
- To simulate the impact of the EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act, a wide range of participants involved in or potentially affected by employment discrimination cases were considered, including employees, employers, and legal professionals.
- Although the policy has a national scope potentially affecting millions, only a fraction will be directly engaged in litigation or aware of EEOC actions, leading to varying levels of impact.
- Budget constraints imply the policy will mainly affect high-profile or strategic cases, limiting its reach to cases directly addressed by the EEOC.
- The selected interviews reflect diverse experiences and insights based on geography, industry, and personal circumstances, to cover different aspects of the population's experience.
Simulated Interviews
HR Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency could affect my company's approach to handling discrimination cases.
- Concerned about potential increase in litigation costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More transparency could encourage me to report discrimination.
- Improved accountability might lead to a fairer outcome for victims like me.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Litigation Attorney (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act enhances the clarity and predictability for my clients.
- The changes might slow down litigation processes initially.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Entrepreneur (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned the policy might result in more litigations and increased costs for small businesses.
- Appreciate the push for transparency which can guide us in following fair practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopely, the transparency makes companies more accountable, improving our work environment.
- Skeptical about actual improvements without strict enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Corporate Lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act will require companies to be more proactive in discrimination prevention.
- Could increase workload initially as companies adjust.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy increases awareness of employee rights among educators.
- I doubt this will directly impact my daily work.
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 |
Non-profit Director (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with the goals of my organization for transparency and accountability.
- We might need to increase our advocacy efforts to ensure policy is enforced properly.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Retail Worker (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency might lead to better treatment and fewer discriminatory practices.
- However, I fear management might suppress cases more, fearing exposure.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Judge (Denver, CO)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy formally acknowledges important legal processes which could clarify actions for the EEOC.
- As someone retired, I believe transparency benefits the public understanding of complex processes, though I won't be directly impacted.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $9500000 (Low: $7600000, High: $14000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $7200000, High: $13500000)
Year 5: $8500000 (Low: $6800000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $7500000 (Low: $6000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The administrative costs are manageable but necessary for compliance with transparency measures and voting procedures.
- Long-term savings could recoup initial investments for infrastructure and additional staffing needs through increased process efficiencies.
- There are limited nationwide economic impacts given the specific operational focus.
- Ensuring data privacy and security for public disclosures is important to consider during implementation.