Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which I reintroduced this year with our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis). For decades, the Federal Government has recognized the need to protect older workers against discrimination on the basis of age. Unfortunately, in 2009, the Supreme Court severely eroded protections for older workers in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. In its decision, the Court set a significantly higher burden of proof for workers alleging age discrimination. Under this standard, workers must prove that age discrimination was the decisive cause of an employer's action rather than just one of the motivating factors, as was the case before the Gross decision. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the NAACP supporting the bill and discussing the Gross decision.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, making cases more difficult to prove contradicts our responsibility to support older workers who have been vulnerable to workplace discrimination. In fact, more than half of older workers are pushed out of longtime jobs before they choose to retire. Age discrimination also holds back our economy. Research by AARP and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that, absent age discrimination, older workers would have contributed $850 billion more in 2018 to the gross domestic product. Clearly, our labor market and economy cannot fully recover from the pandemic if we fail to support our older workers. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a bipartisan initiative that would restore the pre-2009 evidentiary standard for age discrimination claims. This would effectively realign the burden of proof for age discrimination claims so it would again be the same standard that is required for proving discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and national origin. This legislation also reinstates this standard for disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as claims for retaliation for rights protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These statutes have all been implicated by the Gross decision. Last Congress, 261 bipartisan House Members voted in favor of passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This Congress, I hope we can come together again and take this next step to ensure that older workers can achieve justice. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy in support of H.R. 2062. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2062--Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act--Rep. Scott, D-VA, and 112 cosponsors The Administration supports House passage of the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). The bipartisan legislation would restore legal protections for older Americans and hold employers accountable for age discrimination. The bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to replace the ``but-for'' test established in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. with the ``motivating factor'' test. The bill thereby aligns the burden of proof for age discrimination with similar standards for proving discrimination based on race and national origin. In addition, the bill allows individuals claiming discrimination to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence to prove an unlawful practice occurred. Workplace discrimination prevents people from fully accessing the American dream and limits the contributions that they can make to our shared prosperity. Ending it is a priority for the Administration. The President supports this bipartisan legislation that protects workers from age discrimination.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Aging.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter from the AARP, which says, in part, ``Older workers are valuable assets to their employers and the economy. Despite that, 78 percent of older workers reported having seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace in 2020, up markedly from 61 percent in 2018. More than half of older workers are forced out of a job before they intend to retire. Nine out of 10 of those who do find work never again match their prior earnings. Making matters worse, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly diminished job prospects and future retirement security of older workers. In April, over half of job seekers ages 55 and older continued to be long-term unemployed, 53.3 percent, compared to 42.3 percent of job seekers ages 16 to 54. The labor force participation rates for older women workers, along with their earning power and future retirement security, have been particularly hard-hit by COVID.'' All of that is in the letter.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a bipartisan bill that has been introduced over many Congresses with growing support. Over the last decade, Members have debated this bill through multiple legislative hearings, and bills in both the House and the Senate have been introduced and improved every Congress since 2009. Despite the bipartisan legacy of this proposal, some of my colleagues have raised disappointing opposition today. But let's be clear. This bill is not about increasing the number of age discrimination claims. It is about giving victims of discrimination a fair shot at getting relief. It is simply restoring basic protections for older workers. Yes, discrimination against older workers is already illegal, but, regrettably, it is unnecessarily harder to prove because of the 2009 decision. In spite of the fact that it is more difficult, cases are still being brought. But if the cases were as easy to bring or the same difficulty to bring as other cases, even more cases would have been filed. We know this is more difficult because in the original case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Jack Gross successfully proved that his employer had demoted older workers who refused to accept a buyout, while giving their jobs to younger workers. Yet it was only after the Supreme Court changed the rules and required Mr. Gross to retry his case that he lost with the higher standard, because, despite having the same facts, the same parties, and the same court, he lost his case. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is designed to ensure that older workers like Mr. Gross are not denied justice and fair treatment that they deserve. We have heard about attorneys' fees. We need to just remind everybody that lawyers are only awarded attorneys' fees when they win the case. So if you want to reduce attorneys' fees, the businesses can stop discriminating. I hope we can all agree that it is time to stand up for older workers and treat all workers facing discrimination, whether it is on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, or age, with consistency and fairness. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) again for working with me on this bipartisan priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments in this en bloc amendment. Mr. Brown has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit an annual report to Congress on the number of age discrimination claims brought under this act. Ms. Williams has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit a report to Congress on any remaining disparities faced by workers pursuing relief under the mixed motive standard whose cases were covered by the ADEA, as well as other antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that these two amendments would improve the bill. The one from Mr. Brown would give information that is already being provided now, but this would just make sure it continues. It is being provided on a voluntary basis, these annual reports. And Ms. Williams offers a very interesting analysis that some people may be being discriminated against on multiple grounds and pointed out the Federal Reserve study that showed that older workers who happen to be women fared a lot worse than the older workers who happen to be men. We may need to figure out how we deal with that, but we need the data before we can move forward. I hope that we adopt this amendment, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, (Ms. Manning), a distinguished member on the Committee of Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the first amendment that requires the GAO study only seeks to say whether the cases went up or down. The cases can go up because there is more discrimination. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was because of the change in standard. It could be in spite of the standard. And all it does is delay the implementation of the bill. The other sets a different standard for retaliation, where you can win your case that you didn't get promoted but lose your case on the fact that you got hired just because there is a differential standard. Well, that doesn't make much sense. It seems to me that we should go back to the way it was before the Gross decision, have one standard in all of the discrimination cases, and have people be able to prove their case the way they have always been able to prove their case. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.