New Bill Bans 'Disparate Impact' Lawsuits, Removing Key Tool Against Systemic Discrimination in Jobs and Housing

The aptly named "Restoring Equal Opportunity Act" is a major policy proposal that targets one specific but powerful legal tool used in civil rights cases: disparate impact. If this bill becomes law, it would fundamentally change how people can challenge discrimination in the workplace and the housing market across the country.

The End of Disparate Impact Claims

Sections 3 and 4 of this Act are the core of the bill, and they are crystal clear: no one can bring a lawsuit claiming an employment practice (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) or a housing practice (under the Fair Housing Act) is illegal based on "disparate impact." So, what does that actually mean for you? Disparate impact is the legal concept used when a company or landlord has a policy that looks perfectly neutral on paper—it doesn't mention race, gender, or religion—but in practice, it hits one protected group much harder than others. For example, a company policy requiring all entry-level applicants to have a college degree might seem neutral, but if that rule disproportionately screens out applicants from a protected class that historically has less access to higher education, that could be challenged under current disparate impact law. This bill eliminates that challenge.

The Intent vs. Impact Problem

Right now, civil rights law allows you to challenge practices based on either discriminatory intent (the company meant to discriminate) or disparate impact (the policy had a discriminatory effect, even if unintended). This bill removes the second option. The only way to sue an employer or landlord for discrimination under this new framework would be to prove they intended to discriminate. Proving intent is notoriously difficult, requiring a smoking gun like an email or direct testimony. For the average person applying for a job or renting an apartment, this means that if a policy locks them out, and that policy disproportionately affects their community, they have no legal recourse unless they can somehow prove the decision-maker was secretly racist, sexist, or biased. This shifts the entire burden onto the individual to prove malice, rather than allowing courts to examine the real-world effects of a seemingly neutral policy.

Nullifying Existing Protections

Beyond just banning future lawsuits, Section 5 of the Act actively rolls back existing federal oversight. This section explicitly nullifies specific Presidential approvals for regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to the enforcement of civil rights under Title VI and Title VII. In plain English, this voids specific rules that federal agencies use to enforce the very laws the bill is focused on. This move not only cuts off a legal avenue for individuals but also dismantles established administrative tools used by the government to ensure fair practices in employment and in programs receiving federal funding. For those relying on established rules for clarity and enforcement, this creates immediate regulatory chaos and uncertainty.