Sponsors (8)
Want the plain-English version? I'll explain what this bill does.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Adds a new subsection (g) to establish a motivating-factor standard for unlawful age discrimination practices (an unlawful practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that age or an activity protected by subsection (d) was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the practice).
Revises subsection (b) (reorganizing paragraph numbering) and adds a new paragraph that limits remedies on motivating-factor claims: when an individual proves a violation under new 623(g) and the respondent shows it would have taken the same action absent the impermissible motivating factor, the court may grant limited equitable relief and fees but shall not award damages or orders requiring admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment.
Adds a new subsection (m) defining the term 'demonstrates'.
Adds a new subsection (h) applying the newly added 623(g) motivating-factor standard and the 626(b)(3) remedial limitations to claims brought under section 633a (nondiscrimination on account of age in Federal Government employment).
Adds a new definition entry for 'Demonstrates' to the ADA definitions.
Adds a new subsection (e) establishing a motivating-factor standard for discriminatory employment practices under the ADA (an ADA discriminatory practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates disability or protected activity was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the practice).
Revises subsection (c) regarding remedies and procedures for retaliation/coercion claims and adds a new paragraph making 12117(c) applicable to certain anti-retaliation claims under 12112(e)(1) with respect to Title I.
Changes how plaintiffs prove employment discrimination under the ADEA, Title VII, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act by adopting a "motivating factor" standard: a plaintiff can establish liability if a protected trait was a motivating factor even when other factors also influenced the decision. If the defendant proves it would have taken the same action anyway, courts may grant declaratory or injunctive relief and attorney's fees limited to the motivating-factor claim, but may not award damages or orders requiring hiring, reinstatement, promotion, or payment. Applies to claims pending on or after the law's enactment and includes a severability clause so the remainder stays effective if part is found unconstitutional.
Adds a new subsection (g) to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. 623) saying a discriminatory practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that age (or a protected activity) was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the practice.
Amends remedies under the ADEA (29 U.S.C. 626) to say that if a plaintiff proves a violation under new 623(g) and the respondent demonstrates it would have taken the same action absent the impermissible motivating factor, the court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (with some exceptions), and attorney’s fees and costs only to the extent directly attributable to the motivating-factor claim.
Under that same ADEA amendment, the court shall not award damages or order admissions, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment when the respondent shows it would have taken the same action anyway.
Adds a definition to the ADEA (29 U.S.C. 630) stating that the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of production and persuasion.
Makes the ADEA amendments described above (new 623(g) and 626(b)(3)) applicable to federal-employee claims under 29 U.S.C. 633a by adding a subsection that applies those provisions to claims brought under that section.
Workers and job applicants: The Act lowers the threshold to show that discrimination occurred by allowing a plaintiff to prevail if a protected characteristic was a motivating factor. That can help establish liability or a legal finding of discrimination even when mixed motives exist.
Employers and HR departments: Employers remain able to avoid monetary damages, reinstatement, or promotion orders if they can prove they would have taken the same action for legitimate reasons; however, they may still face declaratory or injunctive relief and fee exposure tied to motivating-factor claims. Expect stronger documentation of nondiscriminatory reasons and updated policies and training to support same-action defenses.
Plaintiffs' and defense attorneys: Litigation strategy will shift — plaintiffs may pursue motivating-factor findings to obtain injunctive relief and legal fees, while defendants will focus on proving the same-action defense to avoid damages. Settlement negotiations may change because the availability of monetary relief can be limited.
Courts and enforcement agencies: Federal courts and agencies (e.g., EEOC) will need to interpret the new statutory definition and apply the revised remedies framework across multiple statutes, increasing litigation over statutory language and remedy scope.
Broader effects: The net effect may be more findings of discrimination but fewer monetary recoveries in cases where employers can demonstrate they would have acted the same. That could change incentives for bringing some claims, modify settlement values, and produce doctrinal litigation about the meaning and proof requirements for the defined term "demonstrates."
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced May 20, 2025 by Robert C. Scott · Last progress May 20, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House