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
HOUSE BILL NO. 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.