Just to respond to the idea that this has been rushed. There have been several committee hearings over the last 10 years in the House and one of the Senate, and that information is recorded in the committee report. I also would like to point out that the burden of but for that the Gross decision has saddled older workers with now requires them to show not only that they have been discriminated against but also that they would have gotten the job or wouldn't have been fired but for the fact that they are old. All the older person knows is that when they applied for the job they were told: We don't hire old people. Well, that is not enough, because now you also have to show that you would have gotten the job anyway. You don't know who got hired, and you don't know what their qualifications were, and it is an almost impossible burden to prove that not only were you discriminated against but you know the action would not have been taken but for that action. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services on the Education and Labor Committee.
Share
More from Bobby Scott
“will actually contribute to the creation of miles of bureaucratic red tape, inconsistent education policy and enforcement across the federal government and a significant waste of the taxpayers’ money.”
this is an open invitation for employers, particularly those involving restaurants and hotels, to lower their employees' wages by combining traditionally tipped occupations with nontipped occupations. For example, they will be able to put…
Parliamentary inquiry. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia will state his inquiry.
Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations dedicated to worker rights and building a just and inclusive economy write in opposition to H.R. 2988, Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act; H.R. 2270, Empowering…





