To eliminate disparate impact
If enacted, HB 1889 would have a substantial impact on state laws regarding discrimination and civil rights. It would empower individuals or groups claiming they have been adversely affected by governmental policies to file civil actions in court. This includes seeking injunctive relief, actual damages, and the costs associated with litigation such as attorney's fees. The provision that allows court-awarded fees could incentivize the enforcement of this new law, potentially leading to an increase in litigation surrounding government practices that are alleged to produce a disparate impact.
House Bill 1889, titled 'An Act to eliminate disparate impact', aims to amend Chapter 12 of the General Laws by introducing provisions that prohibit any government unit from adopting or implementing policies or practices that result in disparate impact on protected characteristics. This legislation seeks to ensure that all government actions align with the need to eliminate discrimination, whether intentional or through unintended consequences. A significant aspect of the bill is its clear definition of terms such as 'program, policy or practice' and 'protected characteristic', providing a framework for understanding what constitutes a violation.
There are expected points of contention surrounding the bill, especially concerning its implications for government operations. Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to hold governmental bodies accountable for non-inclusive practices, while opponents might suggest that it could lead to excessive litigation and hamper government efficiency. Additionally, the bill specifies the burdens of proof in disparate impact cases, with the plaintiffs initially bearing the responsibility to demonstrate that a governmental policy caused a disparate impact. Critics may argue this could create challenges for individuals trying to prove their cases under the new law.