HR-10035-119
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E775)
Sponsored by Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
What it does
This bill would amend six major federal anti-discrimination laws — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act (equal pay provision), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act — to extend their protections to independent contractors. Currently, these laws protect employees but generally do not cover workers classified as independent contractors. The bill would treat independent contractors who perform work for an employer as employees for the purposes of these anti-discrimination protections only.
Who benefits
The estimated 64 million Americans who perform some independent contractor or gig work, particularly those in platform-based gig economy jobs (rideshare drivers, delivery workers, freelancers) who currently lack federal anti-discrimination protections. Women contractors who face pay disparities, contractors with disabilities who may be denied work, older contractors who may face age-based exclusion, and contractors who belong to racial or religious minorities. Workers in industries that heavily use contractors — construction, trucking, healthcare staffing, creative industries, and technology — would gain new legal recourse. Civil rights attorneys and advocacy organizations would gain a new enforcement avenue.
Who is hurt
Businesses that rely heavily on independent contractor workforces — including gig economy platforms (rideshare, delivery, freelance marketplaces), staffing agencies, and construction firms — would face new legal exposure and compliance costs. Small businesses that engage contractors on a project basis may face increased litigation risk. Companies may respond by reducing contractor engagements or shifting to more selective hiring, which could reduce work opportunities for some contractors. Employers' legal and HR departments would bear administrative costs of compliance. Businesses operating in states that already extend such protections may face redundant regulatory layers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the rise of the gig economy has created a two-tiered workforce where millions of workers perform the same tasks as employees but are denied basic civil rights protections simply because of how their work arrangement is labeled. They contend that a rideshare driver or freelance designer who is denied work because of their race, age, or disability has no meaningful federal remedy under current law — a gap that was not anticipated when these statutes were written decades before platform-based work existed. With independent contractors now comprising roughly 36% of the U.S. workforce according to Gallup estimates, supporters argue that leaving this population outside the civil rights framework creates a structural loophole that undermines the core purpose of anti-discrimination law.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the independent contractor relationship is fundamentally different from employment — contractors set their own hours, work for multiple clients, and assume business risk in exchange for flexibility and autonomy — and that imposing employment-law obligations on these arrangements distorts the market and may push businesses to terminate contractor relationships entirely. They contend that the bill's broad language, which covers any individual who "provides work under the terms of an independent contract," could expose businesses to discrimination claims from any vendor or service provider, creating unpredictable litigation risk. Critics also argue that existing state laws and contract remedies already address many of these concerns, and that a federal mandate is unnecessary and may reduce the flexibility that many contractors actively prefer.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate labor conditions under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the existing anti-discrimination statutes this bill amends have been upheld on that basis. The bill does not delegate new rulemaking authority to agencies, so the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Chevron scrutiny (Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 2024) are not directly implicated. No significant constitutional barrier is apparent, as extending statutory definitions to cover additional workers is a well-established exercise of congressional power.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the scope of existing anti-discrimination law; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal courts would gain enforcement and adjudicatory authority over a broader class of worker-employer relationships, with no new executive branch rulemaking power created.
Historical precedent
Several states, including California and New York, have extended state-level anti-discrimination protections to independent contractors, providing a partial precedent, but no prior federal legislation has extended all six of these major anti-discrimination statutes simultaneously to cover independent contractors.