# Plain Language Summary: Justice for All Act of 2023

This bill makes it easier for people to sue organizations that receive federal funding if those organizations have policies or practices that unfairly harm certain groups, even if discrimination isn't intentional. The core issue stems from a 2001 Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for people to challenge discriminatory practices in schools, hospitals, housing programs, and other federally funded services. This bill essentially reverses that decision by clarifying that people can bring lawsuits based on "disparate impact"—meaning a policy that sounds neutral on the surface but actually hurts one group more than another.

For example, under this bill, if a school has a dress code that bans natural Black hairstyles like braids and locs, someone could sue even if the school didn't explicitly say "no Black people." The bill recognizes that such policies have a disparate impact on Black students and can be challenged in court. Similarly, if a hospital's policies or practices result in worse health outcomes for people of a particular race, sex, or national origin, patients could sue to challenge those practices. The bill applies this same logic to education, housing, healthcare, transportation, and other programs that receive federal money.

The bill also expands what counts as discrimination by explicitly including religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), and other characteristics. It makes clear that organizations can't use religious freedom arguments to get around civil rights laws, and it addresses concerns about forced arbitration clauses that prevent people from going to court. Additionally, the bill aims to make civil rights lawsuits more financially viable by allowing people to recover attorney's fees even when they win through settlement rather than a full trial verdict, which encourages lawyers to take these cases.

Justice for All Act of 2023

Tlaib, Rashida

Justice for All Act of 2023 This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or race-related characteristics in schools, businesses, federally funded programs, and other settings. It also provides statutory authority for and expands the types of civil actions that may be brought for violations. For example, the bill expands provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so as to (1) prohibit federally funded programs from discriminating based on sex or religion; and (2) prohibit public accommodations, including stores and transit services, from discriminating based on sex. The bill defines sex to include sex stereotypes, pregnancy, childbirth, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics. It also expands the definition of race to include traits that have been historically associated with race (e.g., natural hair textures). The expanded definitions apply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act (discrimination in public and private housing), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs). Further, the bill provides statutory authority for disparate impact or intentional discrimination claims under the aforementioned acts, as well as the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (discrimination based on age by federally funded programs) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (discrimination based on disability by federally funded programs). The bill also includes other provisions that address (1) profiling by law enforcement officers, (2) employer liability with respect to civil rights violations, (3) predispute arbitration agreements in civil rights cases, and (4) governmental immunity in suits involving constitutional violations.