Thousands of D.C. residents—the majority of them black men—come home from prison on a yearly basis. But once they’ve returned, they have trouble finding employment and housing, making them more likely to return to a life of crime. Advocates for the ex-convicts say that their records make them the victims of discrimination, but a bill that would offer them additional protections while applying for jobs and housing has again sparked debate and pitted elected officials against each other.

Today the D.C. Council will debate a bill introduced by Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) that would add criminal records as a protected class under the city’s expansive Human Rights Act, making it illegal to discriminate against a resident in employment and housing due to any past criminal convictions. The bill—which has been debated in one form or another since 2007—would allow for criminal background checks only after a conditional offer of housing or employment is made, and it would force employers to explain why they chose not to hire an ex-convict or face substantial fines for not doing so. (Employers would be allowed to reject applicants for certain jobs; a former bank robber wouldn’t become a bank teller, for one.)

“It will provide the proverbial level playing field for all qualified applicants for employment, housing, and education, allowing each to be judged according to his or her qualifications and abilities, not according to broad brushstrokes stereotyping all people caught up in the criminal justice system as unqualified and undesirable,” testified Philip Fornaci, the director of the D.C. Prisoners’ Project, in March 2011.

The D.C. Chamber of Commerce has fervently opposed the bill, saying that it would open up businesses to costly litigation. Other opponents claim that unlike race, gender and sexual orientation—other protected classes under the Human Rights Act—being a criminal is not an immutable characteristic.

“While Councilman Barry’s goals are laudable—easing the re-entry of ex-offenders into society—his legislation would have disastrous effects on our local businesses, universities, hospitals, and the District government itself. This bill would expose businesses and institutions to frivolous litigation and is truly unworkable,” said Barbara Lang, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, in a press release.

As a means to a compromise, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson introduced a competing bill that would allow some criminal records to be sealed while implementing certificates of good standing for ex-convicts. It would also limit the liability faced by employers when the decide not to hire ex-convicts. While Lang has endorsed the bill, Fornaci calls it “toothless” and “illogical,” primarily taking aim at the certificates of good standing. “Any returning citizen should be considered to be ‘in good standing’ after completion of his or her term of incarceration,” he said at a recent council hearing.

The council is expected to debate both measures today, and it’s shaping up to be a contentious affair. Last week Barry used a clever parliamentary trick to move his bill through his committee, even though it looked like it wouldn’t have otherwise attracted the necessary support. (Mendelson would have cast the vote that would have left the bill hung up in committee.) Additionally, if it’s debated and passed, the council will eventually have to find $700,000 to pay for its enforcement. If Mendelson’s bill is debated, Barry will likely put up a fight—and he’s known for putting up big fights when he thinks it matters.

That being said, it may not amount to much—today during a council breakfast, Mendelson said that he planned on calling Barry’s bill out of order, which would require a majority of the council’s members to overrule.