PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 8, 2016
Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act of 2016 This bill amends the federal judicial code to permit one or more members of a group seeking relief for discriminatory employment practices under specified provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, equal rights laws under the Revised Statutes, or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to sue on behalf of all members of the group if the representative party shows, by a reasonable inference, that: (1) members of the group are so numerous that their joinder is impracticable; (2) claims of the representative party are typical of the claims of the group the representative party seeks to represent and the representative party and the representative party's counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the group; and (3) members of the group are, or have been, subject to an employment practice that has adversely affected or is adversely affecting a significant portion of the group's members. (Thus, it establishes a new standard for employees bringing group actions for certain employment discrimination, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which required "convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy" as a prerequisite to class certification.)
A representative party may challenge a subjective employment practice covered by any of the above-referenced employment statutes in a group action filed under this bill to the same extent as the party may challenge any other employment practice covered by such a statute in such an action.
A "subjective employment practice" is defined as: (1) an employer's policy of leaving personnel decisions to the unguided discretion of supervisors, managers, and other employees with authority to make such personnel decisions; or (2) an employment practice combining such a subjective employment practice with other types of personnel decisions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill prohibits the fact that individual supervisors, managers, or other employees with authority to make personnel decisions may exercise discretion in different ways in applying a subjective employment practice under such a statute from precluding a representative party from filing a corresponding group action.
Representative parties may elect to proceed in a group action under this bill or in a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
People & committees
Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] · D–CT
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 the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Aug 12, 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.R.5692 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.5692 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.5692 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.5692 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.