PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

United States · Bill · HR

H.R. 1646 (115th)

Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2017

referredUnited States· United States Congress· EN

Introduced

21 March 2017

Last action

21 March 2017 · Introduced

Status

Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Sponsors

Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5], Bradley Byrne, Richard Hudson, Todd Rokita, Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12], Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

Subjects

Discovery layer

Source updated

11 August 2025

Summary

Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2017 This bill amends equal employment opportunity requirements under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deem an employer's, labor organization's, employment agency's, or joint labor management committee's consideration or use of credit or criminal records or information, as mandated by federal, state, or local law, to be job related and consistent with business necessity. The use of credit or criminal records shall not be the basis of liability under any theory of disparate impact. (Currently, an unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established if a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.)

This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.

Timeline

  1. 21 March 2017

    Introduced

    Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

    Source: IntroReferral

  2. 21 March 2017

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

  3. 21 March 2017

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

Documents

3 official files

Introduced in House (text)

View fileDownload file

Sponsors

Related records

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.