Summary#
This bill would stop federal courts from using a plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, or sex (broadly defined to include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics) when calculating projected future earning potential in civil damage awards. It also orders federal agencies to create guidance for “inclusive” earnings tables, directs studies and reports on how damages are being awarded, and requires judge training. The stated goal is to remove bias from calculations of future economic losses.
Key changes:
- Ban in federal courts: Federal courts may not use future-earnings calculations that take into account a plaintiff’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or sex (as defined in the bill).
- Guidance for experts and states: The Secretary of Labor must issue guidance for forensic economists to make inclusive earnings tables within 180 days. The Secretary and the Attorney General must give guidance to States on bias-free calculations.
- Studies and reports: The Judicial Conference must study federal personal-injury damages and report aggregate data by case type and by protected classes; the Administrative Office must study how to treat age and disability in earnings calculations without conflicting with equal protection.
- Judge training: The Federal Judicial Center must train federal judges on using compliant future-earnings evidence.
- Scope limit: The bill says it does not stop courts from awarding damages that are remedies for civil-rights violations or from recognizing that a plaintiff is in a protected class.
What it means for you#
- Plaintiffs in federal civil cases: Future earnings awards in federal court may be calculated without using race, ethnicity, or sex-based differences. This could change the size of some awards compared with past practice.
- Forensic economists and expert witnesses: Experts will need to follow new federal guidance on how to build and present future-earnings tables that do not rely on race, ethnicity, or sex. They may have to change methods and documentation.
- Federal judges and lawyers: Judges will receive training and must apply the new ban when ruling on evidence about future earnings. Lawyers may need to adjust expert evidence and arguments.
- State courts: The bill does not directly change state law, but it directs federal agencies to produce guidance for States. States may choose to follow that guidance or keep current practices.
- Government agencies: The Secretary of Labor, Attorney General, the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office, and the Federal Judicial Center must carry out guidance, studies, reports, and training within timelines set in the bill.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
Possible costs and administrative effects (inferred from the bill):
- Developing guidance and new earnings tables will require staff time and technical work at the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice.
- The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office must conduct studies and produce reports, which will use staff and possibly outside data resources.
- The Federal Judicial Center must prepare and deliver training for federal judges.
- Forensic economists, law firms, and courts may face compliance costs to change methods and update materials.
- The bill does not include a specific funding amount or a formal fiscal estimate in the provided material.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to reduce reliance on group-based differences (race, ethnicity, sex) when estimating future earnings. This could be seen as promoting equal treatment in awarding damages.
- Requiring inclusive tables and guidance may standardize methods and reduce inconsistent use of demographic data across experts and courts.
- The studies and reports are intended to give Congress and the courts better data on how damages are awarded and how protected-class factors are reflected in awards.
- Training for judges is meant to help courts apply the new rule and evaluate expert evidence correctly.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill may make it harder to calculate accurate future earnings. Earnings differences by race, gender, or sexual orientation are real in labor-market data; excluding those factors entirely could under- or over-compensate some plaintiffs.
- It is unclear how to apply the ban in practice. The phrase “takes into account” and the inclusion of “actual or perceived” characteristics may create disputes about expert methods and admissibility of evidence.
- The bill covers federal courts but leaves states free to act. Guidance to States is not binding, so outcomes could differ between federal and state cases.
- The bill requires several studies, guidance documents, and trainings but does not specify funding. It is unclear how much time and money agencies and courts will need to implement the changes.
- The bill’s rule that it does not block awards for civil-rights remedies may lead to legal questions about when demographic information is needed to provide an appropriate remedy.