Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees, or refusing to hire applicants, due to their family caregiver responsibilities. The bill also includes prohibitions against employer retaliation and provides for enforcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and private civil claims.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: People with family caregiver responsibilities, subject to employment discrimination
Estimated Size: 27000000
- The bill is focused on protecting employees or job applicants who have family caregiver responsibilities. Family caregivers are individuals who provide assistance to family members who may be elderly, disabled, or chronically ill.
- Many people may have caregiving responsibilities in some form, given the aging population and the prevalence of chronic illnesses.
- Family caregivers often face discrimination in the workplace due to the time and flexibility needed to care for family members.
- According to various studies, a significant portion of the population serves as family caregivers, either part-time or full-time.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to protect about 27 million American caregivers from employment discrimination, making employment more secure and potentially improving their wellbeing.
- The budget of $50 million in year 1 must cover public awareness, legal support systems, and enforcement mechanisms, suggesting a gradually increasing impact as infrastructure supports are built.
- Many caregivers are part-time or full-time employed, and the policy will likely have the most visible impact on those balancing work and caregiving, estimated to be 61% of caregivers.
- The policy may have varying levels of impact depending on the caregiver's socio-economic status, job flexibility, and type or amount of caregiving.
- Some people, despite being caregivers, might not face discrimination currently, thus experiencing little to no impact from the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could really help ensure my job security while I continue to look after my mom.
- I often feel anxiety about losing my job because of my caregiving responsibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retail Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that my caregiving duties affect my chances for promotion.
- The policy might help me balance work with my responsibilities at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Freelance Designer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I freelance, so this policy doesn't directly benefit me, but it's a great support for my peers in traditional jobs.
- I hope it sets a precedent for broader recognition of caregiver challenges.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I face expectations to work overtime, which conflicts with my caregiving.
- This policy might help in negotiating work schedules more favorably.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I run my own farm, so employment discrimination isn't a concern.
- It's good to know there are protections for future possibilities.
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 |
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Frequently fight to balance parental needs with professional duties.
- This bill sounds promising but enforcement will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel pretty secure with my current employer's policies.
- The added legal protection is definitely comforting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Part-time Librarian (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about age discrimination more than caregiving discrimination.
- Any support is welcome as I near retirement.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m part of a diverse team that's generally supportive, but policies like this ensure that support isn't dependent on culture alone.
- Could see stress decrease if I need to stand up for caregiving time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Student and Part-time Retail Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often miss classes or work shifts, and this policy could ease my stress about job penalties.
- Managing both could become much less overwhelming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $43000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Key Considerations
- There may be legal challenges to the bill initially, potentially affecting its implementation timetable.
- The actual impact may vary significantly based on how well the EEOC and judicial systems manage the enforcement of these new regulations.
- Economic conditions and workforce composition changes over time could affect estimates.