HR-9402-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit employers with 11 or more workers from collecting certain categories of employee data — including data on union activity, political views, immigration status, and off-duty behavior — and would require employers to disclose to workers what data is collected, how it is used, and how it affects employment decisions. It would create a new Worker Protection and Technology Division within the Department of Labor to enforce the rules, and would give workers the right to access, correct, and challenge data used in employment decisions. Workers could sue employers directly for violations, with statutory damages ranging from $500 to $100,000 per violation depending on severity.
Who benefits
Current employees and job applicants at covered employers, particularly those in high-surveillance industries such as warehousing, logistics, call centers, gig platforms, and retail. Workers subject to AI-driven performance scoring or productivity monitoring. Workers in unionized or union-organizing environments who fear surveillance of labor activity. Workers with disabilities, immigrants, and religious minorities whose sensitive data could otherwise be collected. Labor organizations, which gain standing to sue on behalf of members. Privacy-focused technology vendors who may gain business providing compliant monitoring tools. Employment attorneys who would handle the new private right of action.
Who is hurt
Employers — particularly large retailers, logistics companies, call centers, and gig-economy platforms — that currently rely on automated monitoring, productivity tracking, or AI-based performance systems, and would face compliance costs and litigation exposure. Workplace surveillance technology vendors whose products may be restricted or require redesign. Employers in safety-sensitive industries (e.g., transportation, healthcare) who use monitoring for legitimate safety purposes and may face ambiguity about permissible data collection. Small businesses near the 11-employee threshold that may face disproportionate compliance burdens. Service providers and HR software companies that handle employee data and would need to renegotiate contracts. Taxpayers who would fund the new federal division and its advisory boards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that workplace surveillance has expanded dramatically with AI and remote work technology, with studies showing that over 80% of large employers now monitor workers digitally — tracking keystrokes, location, communications, and even emotional states — with little transparency or recourse for workers. They contend that unchecked surveillance chills protected labor organizing activity, enables discrimination based on health or immigration status, and creates documented mental health harms, while workers currently have no federal right to know what data is collected about them or how it drives decisions about their pay, hours, or termination.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's sweeping restrictions on data collection — including productivity metrics, communications monitoring, and AI-assisted performance tools — would strip employers of legitimate management tools used to ensure quality, prevent fraud, protect cybersecurity, and comply with other legal obligations. They contend that the bill's broad definitions of "employee data" and "automated decision system," combined with mandatory opt-in requirements for data transfers and statutory damages up to $100,000 per violation, would expose employers to massive litigation risk for routine HR practices and create compliance costs that fall hardest on mid-sized businesses least able to absorb them.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate the employer-employee relationship rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which Wickard v. Filburn (1942) interpreted broadly to cover economic activity with an aggregate effect on interstate commerce. The bill delegates significant rulemaking authority to a new Labor Department division; under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts will independently review whether that delegation and any resulting regulations stay within the statute's boundaries, without deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch gains authority through a new Worker Protection and Technology Division in the Department of Labor, which can investigate, issue regulations, and refer criminal matters; checks include congressional oversight, judicial review of agency rules under the post-Loper Bright independent-judgment standard, and a private right of action that allows courts — not just the agency — to enforce the law.
Historical precedent
No directly analogous federal law governing workplace surveillance comprehensively exists; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 addresses some employer monitoring of communications but does not cover the broad range of data collection, AI systems, or worker rights established by this bill.