Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Relations Commission - Minutes - 05/22/1974M Minutes Fort Collins Human Relations Commission May 22, 1974 RE: Proposed Human Rights Ordinance Public Hearing Number 3 to Members Present: Ed Ostertag Margaret Batson Dave Moore Sam Van Why Elizabeth Dyer Jim Nichols Staff Present: John McGraw Guest: Jeff Sandman, Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Colorado Covil Rights Commission. Other: Members of News Media Concerned citizens (These minutes contain only the discussion related to the proposed Human Rights Ordinance. Tapes of the meeting are available to clarify any points covered herein.) Dave Moore, Vice -Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. After introduction of Commission members and guests, Dave gave a brief explanation of the proposed Human Rights Ordinance: 1. It will be confined to the Fort Collins City Limits, 2. It will cover the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations) 3. It will move it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age --particularly between 45--6D. Futhermore, the ordinance is not geared to create "reverse racism" but to knock out barriers that have in the past have caused discrimination. He then went into a 1971 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice, Warren Berger --Riggs vs. Duke Power. The unamimous op.i_nion referred to Congressional intent regarding to "practices, pro- cedures or tasts nuetril on their face, or nuetral in their intent" that in fact "freeze the status quo," cannot be maintained. Dave gave the example of an employer "requiring two years of college" when that would not be necessary for the job, but would exclude certain groups, that practice would be disriminatory. Second, Dave explained the Court rated that Congress must remove "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers" to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate upon racial or other unpermissible classifications." The HRC has been considering the proposed ordinance for about 1;_5 years revising the ordinance to its satisfaction. The Commission is now throwing it open to the Public Hearings to solicit suggestions. 09 so Minutes of May 22, continued Jeff Sandman, Assistant Attorney General assigned to the CCRC, was then introduced by Dave. Sandman then addressed the proposal. He explained he has assigned to the State Civil Rights Commision, which covers in essence the same areas as the proposed ordinance, employment, public accomadations and housing. The State Commission strongly support local communities passing such ordinances. They further feel the HRC proposed ordinance is satisfactory. He did not see the potential conflict between the State and the proposal as on issue. Rather he urged passage of a "strong enforcible" ordinance with "adequate remidies for any finding of discrimination." The State has a similar "potential conflict" with Federal Agencies, but has not had any via cooper- ation between the State and Federal Agencies. He believes that a similar cooperative working arrangement could be established between the proposed Ft. Collins Human Rights Office and the State. He brought up the point for supporting local agencies regarding the "backlog" of cases --some 800 with some 30 employees --requiring around 13g years for settlement. He felt the local community organization would thus be able to settle disputes much quicker and easier than either the State or Federal Governmants. John McGraw asked what would happen if a case was taken to both the State and Ft. Collins Agency and the Ft. Collins Agency was given jurisdiction, and a conciliation i-:as reached. Then one of the parties backed out, could the dispute then go to the State. Sandman: Such a case would not be a "conciliation ." Before conciliation is reached, both parties must agree. McGraw: What if no conciliation is reached and the dispute goes'throught the local Courts. If the complaintant loses, could he then go to the State? Sandman: First, if the desired working arrangement is reached between the State and Ft. Collins, the "cor.plaint" would already be filed with the State. second, the alleged act would have to of occured within 6 months to be filed with the State. 'Third, The Municipal Court is not a _court of last.resort and an appeal would be available to -both parties. Fourth, there may be a question of ras judicator-- i.e., can a case be tried in more than one Court? Sandman: The whole question is not answered, but shouldn't be the grounds to defeat the passage of the proposal. Rather the question will be answered in the Court, if and when, it arises. Debbie Heaves-- Social worker connected with swallow Youth Hostel and Foothills Gateway: In trying to place handicapped in janitorial employment, the handicapped individual's applications are not being taken. Another example dealt with a handicapped person who was employed. In seeking a slightly better job in stocking, he said he could read. He did his stocking by puttling similar labels together. When the employer learned he caildn't read, the handicapped person was fired. It would be hard to prove "discrimination" in this case, but Heaves felt it existed. She also felt it is a very real problem in Fort Collins. 2 M 40 Minutes of May 22 - Cont'd Molly Norter--First Vice President, League of Women Voters: Presented the attached statement urging the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Nancy McHone--CSU Status of Women: Expressed their support for the ordinance, feeling that the time delay prohibits many from filing complaints. She did ask how the legal fees of the complainant would be handled. Moore: If the complaint was being handled by the Human Rights Office, the case would be under the City Attorney. Van Why: Emphasizing the experience in Boulder has allowed conciliation in each dispute. The point being that courts would be a last resource which should have only minimal, if any, demand. The point being that the chance of conciliation has increased in cases of discrimination. Moore: Emphasizing that having a local, and faster, Human Rights Office to handle complaints would make it easier and more reasonable for people to file complaints. Sandra Gordon --Cody and Pioneer Rest Home: Handicapped need to be recognized as "human beings" having access to employment, housing and public accommodations. Although various City departments have programs geared for them, a need still exists to educate the community. Some architectural renovation is needed to meet the needs of the handicapped. Employment is a real problem for the handicapped to overcome. Dr. Leonore Tiefer--Fort Collins Chapter of National Organization for Women: Because women are discriminated against, NOW is very supportive of this proposal. Examples were given of women being discriminated against in housing, employment, and public accommodations. It would, first, help the complainant in having easier access to file a complaint which, hopefully, would be settled much more quickly. Second, the ordinance prohibits "harrassment or entrapment" to protect businesses from receiving complaints from people not seriously discriminated against. She then raised several questions: 1. Why does the ordinance put the City Manager over the Human Rights Office in- stead of specifying the hiring of a Human Rights Officer? Dave Moore: Technically, the City Manager would still be responsible for the H.R.O. There is full intention, however, to hiere a Human Rights Officer. 2. If passed, how soon will it take effect? McGraw: As soon as reasonable, the City Council assigns an effective date. 3. Who will determine job criteria? McGraw: The Personnel Division. 4. Why is there no time requirement for the Human Rights Officer to settle a case? Several HRC members: Practicality prohibits placing a time limit. Ile have no idea of the number of complaints or of the complaints' technicalities and/or possible variables. 3 M to Minutes of May 22 - Cont'd Sandman: Agreed in the problem in having the case take too long to be resolved. The State Commission has to notify the defendant within 30 days after the complaint is filed. But due to the variables, it is questionable how practicable the time limit would be. Furthermore, what would be done if the time limit was violated? Throw out the case? Fine or imprison the Human Rights Officer? 5. Does Sec. 5, prohibiting "interferring with operation of "The" ordinance vide an adequate remedy? Women have been harrassed and intimadated after filing complaints. Is this section strong enough, or should it include giving the City Manager authority to publicize such threats? Also, should there not also be a clause requiring investigation of threats within seven days? 6. Does ordinance (Sec. 7-a, 1 & 2) prohibit filing with the City at the same time that complaints have been, or are being, filed with state or federal agencies? If not, the ordinance should be modified to clarify. Moore: The intent is to have the Human Rights Officer send to Denver a copy of the complaint. The City would still have jurisdiction and would work toward a settlement. The state could then review the settlement to determine whether or not it was a fair settlement. If the person has already filed with another agency, that agency would have jurisdiction. The intent here is to avoid having both the City and the state working on the same case without knowing another agency was. Tiefer: Although we do have some questions, we are very supportive of the proposal. Rev. Roy Jones --American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): "The principles of this ordinance are completely in harmony with those of the ACLU, and we fully endorse them." Copies have been sent to legal authorities to'bring suggestions and recom- mendations. When those are received, they will be conveyed to you. We have received high praise of a similar ordinance in Colorado Springs. Have you examined it at all? Moore: We have been working from Boulders, and feel most City ordinances are taken from it. Neff Casaburri--CSU Renter's Office: I want to give my support for the ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the base of race, color, national origin, religion or sex in the area of housing. Most of the people coming into my office because of discrimination -- primarily because of sex -- are leary of going to a higher bureaucracy at the state or federal level. I do want to commend the State Civil Rights Commission in their response. But many people are still scared to go to state or federal agencies; and having this on a more local level should make it easier. There still remains a serious problem for divorcees, particularly women. This problem is more obvious in acquiring loans. Does discrimination against a divorcee fall under sex discrimination? Sandman: 1. No legal fees are charged to those filing with the State, as it would be under the proposal -- attorneys are provided. 4 M 4P Minutes of May 22 - Cont'd 2. Divorced woman is still interpreted by the State Commission as falling under "sex discrimination." 3. Discrimination against "single people", especially students, is a real problem. 4. The State Commission, under the Fair Housing Act of 1959, is allowed to go into District Court immediately if, for example, a person is refused housing because of a discriminatory reason. We can go to court seeking an injunction to prohibit the sale or rental of property until the State Commission has solved the complaint. Julie Thompson --citizen: I came in 1971 when CSU had a tremendous housing crisis. What is the stand by this proposal on that problem, i.e., will single students be protected in getting housing? Van Why: We have had that question regarding marital status. Dave Osborn and others have agreed with me that this proposal does not include that as a discrimina- tory reason. Moore: The proposal only covers the "suspect classifications" of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The only way to include that without just saying students are protected would be to include the "equal protection" clause that Boulder has, but our proposal does not. Sandman: The State does include "marital status" in regard to housing. I whole heartedly recommend that marital status be included. H. Allen Vik--Private Employment Agency, Manager: We've had cases where an employee wants only married employees, primarily looking for stability. That may be a problem you should consider. Sandman: Those are the same types of employers who ask if you own a home. Or they ask how many children, especially pre-school children, you have. These questions may seem very neutral. But asking a woman how many children she has is discriminatory. We all know that when the kids are sick, it is the woman who stays home to take care of them. The father does not. With that in mind many employers will not hire a woman if she has children. I don't know if being single will mean that you'll do a worse job, or that being married means you'll do a better job. The state law does not go into employment, but it does cover discrimination due to marital status in housing. Joe Gaazlyk--Taxpaying Citizen: I can see why some landlords and employers would want to be able to discriminate on the basis of marital status. I can see why some would have those kinds of objections to the law. But why aren't those people here? And if those people complain to City Council, how can it be a valid complaint or objection where that is already the law of the state and federal constitutions? Rose Marie Fentis--Taxpaying Citizen: "Definitely in support of the Ordinance" thinking it is fine for the City to have such an ordinance making the City a more pleasant and desirable place in which to live. I, a woman, have had bad experience 5 Minutes of May 22 - Cont'd being discriminated against in employment. E.g., one company in town has separate coffee breaks for men and women, not allowing intermingling during the breaks. There, men were allowed to have pop, coffee and cigarettes at their desks. Women were not and were fired if they did. Hiring, promotion and salary was also dis- criminatory. Women only being considered capable for secretarial positions. The local ordinance would encourage women to file, who wouldn't do so with the state or federal agencies. Gail Doxtader--Citizen: 1. Sec. 7(b) provides the City Manager's investigating to see if the complaint is true. Are you setting any guidelines on how this is to be done? 2. Sec. 7 C. Any statement made by the persons charged in the investigation won't be used in court. I understand why you want to go the route of conciliation, but does this prohibit any statement to be used in court? Moore: Statements that can be used, proven as fact, can be used. This does allow more flexibility in negotiation --more give and take. Doxtader: This should be better clarified. Sandman: If the City Manager can determine if the complaint is "true", there is no need to go any further. The proper legal term should be if "probable cause" exists. Ostertag: Are you, Ms. Doxtader, in support of the ordinance? Doxtader: I'm in favor in principle. I am concerned about the language and the wav it is written. I'm concerned that there be a strong commission behind it and that its enforcement not be boggled by the way it is written. Melinda Wood --Concerned Citizen: "I think the ordinance is a good ordinance and I am in favor of it." But I would like to see the inclusion of marital status and handicapped.under discriminatory reasons. Susy Glasser --Voting and Working Fort Collins Citizen: Pleased to see ordinance being considered. If it had been in force when I was looking for a job, some of the obstacles may not have existed. E.g., I was asked, "Are you seeking a job here because your boyfriend lives here?" Do males get asked if they want a job here because their girlfriend lives here? Another question was if I could type. I have not been asked if I want any in-service training or hold a management position. Only men are considered. Also, I'm tired of ads asking for an "attractive woman". How many ads ask for an "attractive" man? Also, where I work the men have a gym they can use; women are completely denied usage. Lee McDavid--Concerned Citizen: In support primarily seeing it as a more efficient and quicker process for both parties than currently exists. Stressing the point that such regulations do exist on the state and federal levels so that Fort Collins is not radical in passing this ordinance. The key point being that such an ordinance should increase the efficiency. If passed, it would be something Fort Collins could be proud of. 0 N Minutes of May 22 - Cont'd Nancy Johnson --Representing Co -Organizers of YWCA: The three full-time organizers and some 25 vo lunteers are in support of the ordinande after reconsideration and working. I'm supportive of the marital status and feel it should also include public accommodations as well as employment and housing. Wouldn't the Police Department and Fire Department be included under "public accommodations?" I know of minority divorced women who have been beaten by their estranged spouces and received virtually no assistance from the Police Department. I would also like to see it worded so that unwed mothers aren't discriminated against. Agnes Lilly --Citizen: This ordinance is long overdue. We need more public discus- sion through public organizations to build up public support. You should be con- tacting organizations like churches, to build up "grass roots" support. Ostertag: There have been questions raised regarding the technicalities of the pro- posal. Jeff Sandman can serve as a valuable resource in this area having had broader exposure to it, and he represents an office having cases related to this giving him more expertise. Can we thus seek his assistance? Sandman: I will be willing to give you "unofficial" recommendations, but I can't give you an official opinion representing the General Attorney's office. Ann Azari: I have received criticisms from at least seven people that the ordinance is "shodily" written and could lead to conflicts because of the wording. Discussion then followed on what process should be taken to consider the changes and possible additions. Because the sub -committee was present, it was agreed to have the sub -committee put together the possible changes, seeking assistance from Mr. Sandman. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. J 7