Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
01/30/2023 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB13 | |
HB46 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 13-APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 3:16:05 PM CHAIR SUMNER announced that the first order of business would be HB 13, "An Act relating to the definition of 'employer' for the purposes of the State Commission for Human Rights." 3:16:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented HB 13. He stated that Alaska has had a State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR) since 1963; however, it does not have jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations. He said that according to Legislative Research Services, it is unclear why this is the case. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that ASCHR was created to eliminate discrimination based on factors such as race and ethnicity, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) acts as a "parent organization" and generally covers larger employers. He stated that EEOC will pay a fee to ASCHR to handle some cases EEOC would normally handle. He reiterated that HB 13 would give ASCHR jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations. He reinforced that the Alaska Human Rights Commission operates by investigating meritorious claims of discrimination, working to conciliate both sides to keep the cases from going to court; however, the agency can take cases to court if a reconciliation agreement cannot be reached. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the ASCHR commissioners appointed in 2018 by Governor Bill Walker had supported the change HB 13 proposes. He highlighted that the commissioners now, appointed by Governor Mike Dunleavy, agree with the previous commissioners. 3:21:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed the belief that the proposed legislation is necessary to address a gap in jurisdiction. He explained that if a person is discriminated against for housing or employment, this individual is able to take the claim to the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (AERC); however, residents who work for a nonprofit in other parts of the state do not have this opportunity. He pointed out that because ASCHR lacks jurisdiction, a gap is created. He noted that only nine states lack protections for nonprofit employees. He pointed out that approximately 50 cases statewide were not "screened in" by ASCHR because of this lack of jurisdiction. 3:24:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many cases ASCHR deals with per year. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed uncertainty and deferred the questioned to Robert Corbisier, the Executive Director at the commission. 3:25:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE reported a potential conflict, as his wife serves as a commissioner for ASCHR. CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Ruffridge. 3:25:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in the 2021 report from ASCHR, there was a peak of 1,733 cases in the highest year, 405 of which were found to have a basis. In 2021, he stated that the number dropped to 674, and he expressed the belief that this could be related to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3:27:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the number of cases for 2021. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that there were 674 inquiries in 2021. Of these, 139 cases were found to have a basis, while 119 cases were taken in. Out of these cases 106 complaints were filed. 3:27:43 PM ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "HB 13: Applicability of Human Rights Commission" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He explained that the proposed legislation would amend the definition of "employer" in AS 18.80.300, to include nonprofit organizations, and this would give ASCHR jurisdiction on discrimination cases. 3:29:19 PM MR. SCHROEDER moved to slide 2 and stated that the federal equivalent to ASCHR is EEOC, which was created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with employment-related discrimination. He noted that EEOC covers employers with 15 or more employees, while ASCHR covers any employer with at least one employee. He continued to slide 3 and said that ASCHR was created in 1963, adding that Alaska is one of only nine states not including nonprofit organizations under the jurisdiction of its human rights commission. He said that municipal level human rights commissions, such as the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission and the Juneau Human Rights Commission (JHRC) have nonprofit organizations included under their jurisdictions. MR. SCHROEDER argued that, while there are other commissions covering nonprofit organizations in relation to employment discrimination, it is still important for ASCHR to gain jurisdiction over these types of cases. He explained that the location of the nonprofit organization matters, and residents of an area should be able to go to the human rights commission within their municipality, even if the nonprofit organization is in another area. He said that there are areas in Alaska with significant numbers of nonprofit employees who do not have a municipal commission. 3:34:08 PM MR. SCHROEDER returned to slide 3 and said that ASCHR has had a legislative goal to gain jurisdiction over employment related discrimination cases for four consecutive years. On slide 4, he gave a brief overview of what the proposed legislation would do, reiterating that the definition of "employer" would be changed in statute to include nonprofit organizations. He added that the exceptions would be for religious, fraternal, and social nonprofit organizations. 3:35:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked for a specific example of an instance when this would be needed. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed the inability to provide a case, explaining that this is because ASCHR currently lacks jurisdiction. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier. 3:37:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the minutes from the bill which created ASCHR had been reviewed. He indicated that these minutes may help understand why the makers of that bill did not include nonprofits. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that Legislative Research Services has related that because of the age of the legislation, the records are limited, and no minutes are available to provide context. He continued that the records prior to 1990 are difficult to find, if at all. In response to a follow-up question, he offered to contact his father on the matter, as he had been a legislator at the time. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the same definition of "employer" is used at the municipal and federal level, but not the state level. MR. SCHRODER answered that the definitions vary, as well as the exceptions to these definitions. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier. 3:40:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK questioned the rationale for excluding religious and fraternal organizations, and he questioned the definition of a "fraternal organization." REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that HB 13 would cover an "evolving" area of law, and this is an example. He expressed the opinion that a church should not be required to ordain female clergy if this is against its beliefs. He offered that the Boy Scouts of America are an example of a social or fraternal organization, and although its position has been reversed, there was a case concerning a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) scout leader. He said that the bill ultimately reflects language the commissioners have requested. 3:45:37 PM ROBERT CORBISIER, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission on Human Rights, stated that ASCHR enforces Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and this is the section that provides for civil rights. He said ASCHR is the legislature's implementation of this constitutional provision. He continued that ASCHR has jurisdiction over employment, public accommodations, the sale and rental of real property, credit and financing, and government practices cases, as well as retaliation cases, which often stem from one of the previous types of cases. He noted that the Fairbanks Diversity Council and JHRC are advisory councils without the ability or resources to enforce decisions. He noted AERC is the only other entity in Alaska with the ability and authorization to implement and enforce decisions. He explained that this gap means that small nonprofit organizations of fewer than 15 employees would not face accountability for discrimination. 3:49:02 PM MR. CORBISIER stated that ASCHR receives reimbursement from the EEOC for taking co-jurisdictional cases; however, EEOC does not track the "screened-out" cases. He said that ASCHR is not a punitive agency, and its goal is to make victims "whole" and work with the respondents to create an enforceable nondiscrimination policy which complies with state and federal laws. He informed the committee that in 2022, ASCHR received 814 cases, of which 184 had basis, 164 were formally taken, with 134 of these investigated. 3:53:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX reported a potential conflict of interest, as his sister-in-law serves on the ASCHR board. CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Prax. REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether EEOC would take cases dealing with a nonprofit organization if the organization had 15 or more employees. MR. CORBISIER answered that it would; however, if the employer is in Anchorage, EEOC would refer all of these cases to ASCHR or AERC. He explained that if the employer is a nonprofit EEOC would be informed that ASCHR cannot take the case. In response to a follow up question, he expressed uncertainty concerning the 15-employee threshold. He speculated that it is related to the size of cases the federal government will address. 3:55:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation on the jurisdictional gap present in employment discrimination cases. MR. CORBISIER answered that the jurisdiction of AERC and ASCHR are similar; however, AERC has explicit jurisdiction over cases involving LGBTQ discrimination as a protected class. He said AERC also has jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations within the Municipality of Anchorage, while EEOC has jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees, including nonprofit organizations. He added that both organizations would have jurisdiction over cases involving government employers. In response to a follow-up question, he said that ASCHR covers employers with any number of employees, excluding nonprofit organizations. In response to a follow-up question, he answered that ASCHR has a budget of just over $2 million. He added that this is roughly what it costs to repave a mile of road. 3:58:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the reimbursement per case from EEOC. He also questioned the associated costs with taking on those cases. MR. CORBISIER answered that ASCHR has the capacity to accept more cases without additional cost to the state. He added that most of the rejected cases are "obviously" not jurisdictional. He voiced that ASCHR moves away from giving "false hope" for these complaints. He continued that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the number of cases to decline because of remote work. He stated that since normalcy is returning, the number of cases has increased. In response to a follow-up question, he said that the amount of reimbursement could be up to $800 per case, and that 45,000 employees could be affected by the change in jurisdiction. He confirmed that it would not cause an increase in cost to the state's general fund. 4:03:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Corbisier about the difference between the original version of the bill and the commission's adopted resolution language. MR. CORBISIER answered that the commission's resolution relies on the religious exemption language provided in regulation. He confirmed that the bill's draft did not change the religious exemption language but removed the word "club." 4:05:38 PM CHAIR SUMNER announced that HB 13 was held over.