PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 18, 2015
Amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to treat field emergency medical service practitioners in the same manner as firefighters or law enforcement officers for purposes of exempting state employers from otherwise prohibited age discrimination practices.
Allows an employer that is a state, political subdivision, and interstate agency to fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any such practitioner because of the individual's age if the employer provides the practitioner an annual opportunity to demonstrate physical and mental fitness by passing a job performance test identified by the Department of Health and Human Services in order to continue employment.
Defines "field emergency medical service practitioner" as an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily to perform work directly connected with the responsibility of administration of specialized pre-hospital emergency care for victims of acute illnesses or injury, including an employee engaged in such activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position.
People & committees
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 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.1440 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.1440 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.1440 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.1440 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.