Easier to prove discrimination, harder to get paid for it
H.R. 3522 — Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2025 · Filed by Bobby Scott (D-VA) · 8 cosponsors · Introduced May 20, 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 makes it easier for workers to prove age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability discrimination by requiring only that discrimination be 'a motivating factor' in an employment decision—even if other factors were involved. However, it simultaneously restricts remedies: when an employer proves it would have made the same decision anyway, courts can award only attorney's fees and declaratory/injunctive relief, but NOT damages, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or back pay. The bill applies these standards to federal employees and contractors under multiple civil rights laws.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a two-part shift: it lowers the causation standard for proving discrimination (motivating factor, not sole cause) while simultaneously narrowing available remedies when employers invoke a 'same decision' defense. This is not a straightforward worker-protection measure; it is a rebalancing of burden and remedy that favors employers in mixed-motive cases.
What the text implies
- The 'motivating factor' standard is easier to meet than 'but-for' causation, but the bill's remedy cap means proving discrimination may yield only attorney's fees and injunctions—not the back pay, damages, or reinstatement that make litigation economically viable for individual workers. This may reduce actual enforcement despite lower proof burden.
- The 'would have taken the same action' affirmative defense shifts burden to the employer to prove hypothetical conduct. Courts will need to develop new standards for evaluating this defense, creating years of litigation uncertainty and potential circuit splits.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
employers (reduced exposure to damages and reinstatement orders in mixed-motive discrimination cases; employment defense counsel (increased litigation over 'same decision' defense interpretation)