Newly Passed Congressional Sexual Harassment Bill Aims to Set a "Positive Example" for Nation
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.04.19
The wave of transparency and accountability heightened by the #MeToo movement has hit Capitol Hill. After months of negotiations, on December 13, 2018, Congress passed S. 3749, a bipartisan, bicameral bill to amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 by providing new procedures for initiating, reviewing, and resolving sexual harassment claims. President Trump signed the bill on December 21, 2018. The amendments will become effective in June 2019 (180 days after President Trump signed the bill into law).
The hallmarks of the bill, which Congressional members touted as “a strong step towards creating a new standard in Congress that will set a positive example in our nation,” include:
- Requiring Senators and Members of the House of Representatives (including Delegates or Resident Commissioners to the Congress) who, while in office, personally commit sexual harassment or retaliate against individuals for reporting sexual harassment, to reimburse the Treasury Department for settlement payments and awards made in connection with those claims.
- Publication of a publicly accessible, annual list of settlement payments and awards made in connection with sexual harassment allegations.
- Requiring congressional offices to develop and implement training programs to educate employees about their rights and protections under the Congressional Accountability Act.
- Initiation of biennial workplace climate surveys on attitudes regarding sexual harassment.
- Automatic referral to the Congressional Ethics Committee of any awards or settlements made in connection with sexual harassment claims involving members of Congress or senior staff.
- Allowing congressional employees alleging sexual harassment to work remotely or take paid leave during the pendency of processes.
The full text of S. 3749 can be found here. See also Press Release, Committee on House Administration, House and Senate Reach Agreement on Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reforms (Dec. 12, 2018).
Because the bill affects congressional employers only, there is nothing that private employers must do in direct response to this bill. However, private employers should keep abreast of developing state and local anti-harassment laws which may apply to them. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to, increased training requirements and restrictions on the use of arbitration agreements or non-disclosure agreements in connection with sexual harassment claims. These developments are driven by the same considerations as those addressed by Congress in S. 3749, and include efforts to promote transparency of sexual harassment claims and increase accountability of those accused of harassment.
Crowell & Moring’s team will continue to monitor anti-harassment and #MeToo developments in both the public and private sectors and is available to assist companies in complying with their obligations and efforts to increase transparency and accountability in this area.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
