PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 31, 2011
District of Columbia Employee Suitability Act of 2011 - Amends the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to establish criteria to determine whether an individual is suitable for employment with the District of Columbia government.
Authorizes the hiring authority involved, subject to exceptions, to find an individual unsuitable and take a suitability action only on the basis of: (1) misconduct or negligence in employment; (2) criminal or dishonest conduct; (3) material, intentional false statement, or deception or fraud in examination or appointment; (4) alcohol abuse of a specified character; (5) illegal use of narcotics, drugs, or other controlled substances without evidence of substantial rehabilitation; (6) knowing and willful engagement in acts or activities designed to overthrow the U.S. government by force; and (7) any statutory or regulatory bar preventing the lawful employment of the individual involved in the position in question.
Specifies additional factors the hiring authority may consider.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a hiring authority from making a new determination under this Act for an individual who has already been determined suitable or fit based on character or conduct unless: (1) a new investigation is required under the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (Merit Personnel Act) or any successor law, or (2) no new investigation is required but the investigative record on file for the individual shows conduct incompatible with the core duties of the relevant covered position.
Makes such suitability determination factors: (1) applicable to any office in the District of Columbia executive branch and to any District of Columbia independent agency, and (2) inapplicable to the Council and courts of the District of Columbia.
Prohibits appointments to any position in the excepted service under the Merit Personnel Act unless the individual applies for and submits to a criminal background check in accordance with the Criminal Background Checks for the Protection of Children Act of 2004.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · R–CA
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 Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives.
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.
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.3285 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.3285 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.3285 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.3285 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.