PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4714)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 22, 2014
Encourages corporate, academic, and social entities to: (1) develop an internal rule modeled after a successful business practice, such as the Rooney Rule (requires every National Football League team with a coach or general manager opening to interview at least one minority candidate) or the RLJ Rule (encourages companies to voluntarily establish a best practices policy to identify minority candidates and vendors by implementing a plan to interview at least two qualified minority candidates for managerial openings at the director level and above and to interview two qualified minority businesses before approving a vendor contract) and, in accordance with title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, adapt that rule to specifications that will best fit the procedures of the individual entity; and (2) institute the individualized Rooney Rule or RLJ Rule to ensure that the entity will always consider candidates from underrepresented populations before making a final decision when searching for a business vendor or filling a leadership position.
People & committees
Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4714)
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 21, 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 S.Res.511 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 S.Res.511 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 S.Res.511 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 S.Res.511 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.