Equal Remedies Act of 2026
HB 9116, the Equal Remedies Act of 2026, would expand the remedies available in two federal employment-discrimination statutes. First, it would amend 42 U.S.C. 1981a to clarify that compensatory damages are available for a broad range of losses, including past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary harms. It would also make clear that any party may demand a jury trial under that section.
Second, the bill would revise the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) so that people alleging age discrimination can access the same kinds of legal and equitable relief available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In practical terms, that means aligning ADEA remedies more closely with Title VII remedies and expanding the enforcement toolkit for age-discrimination claims, including the availability of compensatory and punitive damages as described in the bill text.
The bill would amend federal civil rights law by changing the remedies available in employment discrimination cases, particularly under the ADEA and section 1981a of the Revised Statutes. It would broaden potential monetary recovery and procedural rights for plaintiffs, while also affecting employers, the EEOC, and litigants in age-discrimination and other covered employment cases. Because it references Title VII remedies, it would likely increase exposure to damages and litigation risk in federal employment-discrimination suits.
Based on the bill title and text, the measure appears to be framed as a civil-rights expansion aimed at equalizing remedies for workers facing discrimination, especially older workers. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from the legislative record provided. Overall, the bill’s purpose suggests a pro-plaintiff, pro-enforcement sentiment focused on parity between age discrimination and other forms of employment discrimination.
The main point of contention is likely to be the expansion of damages and litigation remedies, especially the availability of compensatory and punitive damages and jury trials in age-discrimination cases. Supporters would likely argue that older workers should have the same meaningful remedies as other discrimination plaintiffs, while critics may argue that the bill increases employer liability, raises litigation costs, and goes beyond the traditional remedial structure of the ADEA. No specific member objections or negotiated compromises are included in the provided record.