Congress restores right to sue for discrimination, bans forced arbitration
H.R. 1354 — Justice for All Act of 2025 · Filed by Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) · 17 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 13, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill restores and expands the right of individuals to sue in federal court for discrimination under major civil rights laws (Title VI, Title IX, Fair Housing Act, Age Discrimination Act, Rehabilitation Act). It explicitly permits private lawsuits based on disparate impact (policies that harm protected groups even if not intentionally discriminatory), adds explicit protections for LGBTQ individuals and hair discrimination, eliminates forced arbitration for employment and civil rights disputes, removes the Faragher-Ellerth defense that shields employers from harassment liability, and guarantees attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs—including in settlements.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to restore and broaden private enforcement of federal civil rights statutes by reinstating disparate impact claims, guaranteeing attorney's fees, and banning forced arbitration. It is a direct response to Supreme Court decisions (Alexander v. Sandoval, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion) that narrowed civil rights remedies.
What the text implies
- Disparate impact standard may increase litigation risk for employers, housing providers, and educational institutions, potentially raising compliance costs and insurance premiums across sectors.
- Removal of Faragher-Ellerth defense eliminates a major liability shield for employers, shifting harassment liability from individual supervisors to the employer itself in all cases.
- Ban on predispute arbitration agreements may redirect millions of employment and consumer disputes from private arbitration to federal and state courts, increasing court dockets.
- Attorney's fees guarantee (including in settlements) may incentivize more civil rights litigation by making it economically viable for smaller law firms and individual plaintiffs.
- Explicit inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in Title II public accommodations may trigger religious liberty litigation under RFRA, though the bill explicitly states RFRA provides no defense.
Who it affects
Ordinary people gain enforceable rights to sue for discrimination in court rather than being forced into arbitration or limited to administrative remedies. Disparate impact claims, attorney's fees, and removal of employer harassment defenses make it materially easier and cheaper for victims to vindicate civil rights. The bill directly benefits individuals harmed by discrimination across employment, housing, education, and public accommodations.
Who stands to gain
- civil rights law firms
- plaintiff's attorneys
- employment litigation specialists
- expert witnesses in discrimination cases
Named in the bill
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Fair Housing Act, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Federal Arbitration Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Alexander v. Sandoval (Supreme Court), AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (Supreme Court), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (Supreme Court), Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (Supreme Court) — and 2 more
Where it stands
17 cosponsors: 17 Democrats.
- Feb 13, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 13, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Education and Workforce and House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,630,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 57 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Rashida Tlaib, the sponsor, reported $42,050 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
- American Tort Reform Association — $20,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jun 8, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress restores right to sue for discrimination, bans forced arbitration” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1354 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.