PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E775)
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E775)
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E766)
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2026. 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.R.10035 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.R.10035 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.R.10035 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.R.10035 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill proposes to include individual people working for an employer under an independent contract in specified federal discrimination and labor-law provisions. It would amend existing laws to expressly include these workers. The surrounding statutory rules are not supplied, so the text does not establish every protection, exception, or remedy that would apply.
This Act may be cited as the Protecting Independent Contractors from Discrimination Act of 2026.
The first sentence of section 701(f) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(f)) is amended by inserting or an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer, after employer,.
For purposes of this subsection, the term employee includes an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer.
For Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the proposal would insert language including people working for an employer under an independent contract into the first sentence of section 701(f). The existing sentence is not reproduced.
The first sentence of section 701(f) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(f)) is amended by inserting or an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer, after employer,.
For the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the proposal would add people working for an employer under an independent contract to the first sentence of section 11(f). The supplied amendment does not reproduce that sentence's existing qualifications.
The first sentence of section 11(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 630(f)) is amended by inserting , or an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer, after employer.
The proposal would expressly count individual contract workers as employees for section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment is limited to that subsection; it does not state that contractors become employees for the entire Act.
Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term employee includes an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer.
For the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposal would add people working for an employer under an independent contract to the first sentence of section 101(4). The surrounding statutory language is not supplied.
The first sentence of section 101(4) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(4)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: or an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer.
For the Rehabilitation Act, the proposal would insert individual contract workers immediately after the reference to an applicant for employment in section 505(a)(1). The existing provision is not reproduced, limiting what can be determined about the change's operation.
Section 505(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1)) is amended by inserting or any individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer after applicant for employment.
For the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the proposal would add individual contract workers as a sixth alternative in section 201(2)(A), with corresponding changes to the list's punctuation and connecting words.
Section 201(2)(A) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff(2)(A)) is amended— (1) by striking or at the end of clause (iv); (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (v) and inserting ; or; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (vi) an individual who provides work for an employer under the terms of an independent contract with such employer.
The supplied August 12, 2026 source snapshot records introduction and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on August 3, 2026, and sponsor introductory remarks on August 3 and August 6. This snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-12T13:00:48Z. 2026-08-06: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E775) 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House 2026-08-03: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E766)
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Extending access to generally available protections for a broad class of workers does not by itself constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to this text version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 12, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI