Bill would bar courts from accounting for wage gaps in damage awards

What it does

This bill prohibits federal courts from using race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or related characteristics when calculating damages for lost future earnings in civil lawsuits. It directs the Department of Labor and Attorney General to develop guidance for forensic economists and states on creating 'bias-free' earnings tables, and requires the Judicial Conference to study how damages are currently awarded and report back to Congress.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a prohibition on using protected-class characteristics in future-earnings damage calculations, paired with a directive to develop alternative methodologies. It is fundamentally a restriction on judicial discretion in tort damages, not a substantive rights expansion.

What the text implies

• The prohibition may prevent courts from awarding full compensatory damages to plaintiffs who suffered documented wage discrimination, since accounting for the actual earnings gap they experienced could be read as 'taking into account' their protected status.
• The 'rule of construction' carve-out (Section 3) states the bill does not deny damages 'for the purposes of Federal civil rights laws,' but this language is ambiguous—it is unclear whether a Title VII or Equal Pay Act plaintiff can still recover lost wages reflecting the actual gender/race pay gap they faced.
• Requiring 'inclusive future earnings tables' that ignore race/ethnicity/gender may mathematically underestimate damages for plaintiffs in lower-wage occupations if those occupations are segregated by race or gender, unless the tables are constructed to account for occupational choice independent of discrimination.
• The study requirement (Section 5) directs the Judicial Conference to examine 'aggregate data' by protected class, which could generate evidence that the prohibition itself reduces damages for certain groups—creating political pressure to defend or expand the restriction.
• State tort law is not directly bound by this federal prohibition, but the bill directs the Attorney General to develop guidance for states to adopt similar restrictions, potentially creating a coordinated federal-state framework that limits damages across jurisdictions.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill addresses a real problem—some forensic economists have historically used race/gender-based earnings differentials in damage calculations, which can perpetuate discrimination in courtrooms. However, the operative prohibition may prevent courts from accounting for documented, systemic wage gaps that plaintiffs actually experienced, potentially reducing damages for victims of discrimination while the 'rule of construction' carve-out is vague and may not protect civil rights remedies in pra

Who stands to gain

• defendants in personal injury and employment discrimination cases
• liability insurers (reduced exposure to large damage awards)
• forensic economics consulting firms (new market for 'bias-free' earnings table development)

Named in the bill

Department of Labor, Attorney General, Judicial Conference of the United States, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Center, forensic economists, federal courts, state tort proceedings

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Democrats.

• Jun 26, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jun 26, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.