PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 14, 2015
Congress disapproves the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving Section 3(a) of the Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 (D.C. Act 20-605), signed by the Mayor of the District on January 25, 2015, and transmitted on March 6, 2015, to Congress pursuant to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
Section 3(a) repeals the exemption allowing religiously-affiliated educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
D.C. Act 20-605:
amends the Office of Human Rights Establishment Act of 1999 to require the Director of the Office of Human Rights to have a demonstrated professional background in human rights law,
amends the Human Rights Act of 1977 (HRA of 1977) to require the annual report by the Mayor to the District Council to include information on investigations and inquiries undertaken by the Director or the Office,
repeals the exemption allowing religiously-affiliated educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and
makes inapplicable to HRA of 1977 claims that required specified written notice to the Mayor regarding claims against the District for unliquidated damages.
People & committees
Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.44 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.44 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.44 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.44 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.