Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2006 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB304 | |
| SB306 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of
the State Commission for Human Rights; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 24-
GS1110\Y, Kane, 4/17/06.
Representative Kertulla OBJECTED to allow time to review
upcoming amendments. Following brief discussion, it was
determined that amendments could be addressed subsequently,
and she REMOVED HER OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTIONS, the Committee Substitute was
ADOPTED.
RANDY RUARO, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified regarding the Y Version of the bill. He explained
that this version maintained changes made the House
Judiciary Committee, with the exception of two amendments
which had been made by Representative Gara: 1) to place a
statute of limitations for filing claims with the Commission
into statute and extend the limit from 180 days to a year
and 2) to allow for an award of full attorney's fees in
court cases where a plaintiff prevailed on a claim of
discrimination. These two amendments were dropped from the
bill. One of the more important changes was to give the
Executive Director of the Commission the ability to decide
when to go forward with a case. He explained that
currently, the Commission was required to proceed on all
cases with substantial evidence of discrimination. The
bill allows the Director to look at an employer's defenses
and decide whether or not to proceed. The passage of the Y
version would also zero out the fiscal note, since the two
positions necessitated by the amendments were no longer
necessary. He pointed out that the Committee would need to
adopt Fiscal Note #3, a previously published zero fiscal
note.
9:34:57 AM
Representative Kerttula clarified that the Judiciary
Committee version originally contained the statute of
limitations extension and allowed for attorney's fees.
9:35:15 AM
Representative Stoltze opened the floor to public
testimony.
COMMISSIONER MERKES, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, testified via
teleconference. She commented on the amendments which had
been deleted. She stated that the Commission believed the
365 statute of limitations had been too long a period, and
that 180 days was sufficient. She also noted that they
would like to keep this out of statute and in regulations.
Regarding the awarding of attorney's fees, she stated that
the Commission did not believe that this bill was the proper
vehicle to carry this provision.
9:37:32 AM
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
Representative Kerttula MOVED Amendment #1, 24-GS1110\Y.2,
Kane, 4/19/06. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED.
Representative Kertulla explained that the Amendment would
allow one year within which a plaintiff could file a
complaint, as opposed to 180 days currently in regulation.
This was the amendment originally added in the House
Judiciary Committee and then dropped in the current
Committee Substitute. She conceded that this might result
in new cases for the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Ruaro pointed out opposition to the amendment. He
stated that the Commission has handled the statute of
limitations for 43 years, and would like to maintain that
control. 32 out of 46 states with a Human Rights Commission
utilize the 180-day standard. Also, he stressed that the
public had not indicated by testimony that this time was too
short. Most cases are against employers, many of them small
businesses, and 70 percent of the cases were dismissed for
lack of evidence, after having incurred time and expense for
these employers to defend themselves. He noted that more
employers would then have to go through this process and
expense. He added that the State Chamber opposes the
amendment.
Representative Joule asked if by regulation the Commission
can currently choose to hear a case that is past the statue
of limitations. Mr. Ruaro responded that the Commission has
statutory authority to set the time period for filing a
claim. The time limit has been set at 180 days, meaning
that they could not arbitrarily hear a case that was past
this time period. By putting the limitation into statute,
as opposed to regulations, the Commission could no longer
change the limitation except through the legislative
process.
9:42:50 AM
Representative Joule asked whether the caseload prevents
hearing of current cases. Mr. Ruaro noted that there was
some backlog, but not inordinate.
Commissioner Merkes stated that the backlog was extensive,
at nearly 100 cases, and that these take up to eight months
to process.
Representative Joule asked about the reason for the backlog.
Commissioner Merkes noted that by the time the backlog was
caught up, much of the information was outdated. She noted
that in the new budget two additional staff positions were
requested. She pointed out that with the 365 days limit,
intake cases would be increased by approximately 125 cases.
STEVE KOTEFF, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, testified via
teleconference. Responding to a follow up question by
Representative Joule, Mr. Koteff stated that the Commission
reviewed cases in the order in which they were filed. He
also noted that at times cases might be taken out of order,
if violence or an egregious nature warranted it.
9:45:58 AM
Representative Joule observed that if the amendment was put
in place, the waiting list would increase. Mr. Koteff
confirmed that this would increase the backlog of cases. He
pointed out the fiscal note that included more personnel to
handle the backlog were the amendment adopted.
9:46:45 AM
Representative Kerttula maintained that the bill gave a
basis to dismiss cases more expediently, based upon the
evidence available. She proposed that this would help to
clean up a backlog and offset any waiting list.
Mr. Koteff commented that the discretion of the bill leaned
more toward cases with substantial evidence. He indicated
that presently the law read that a complainant had an
absolute right to a hearing. The Commission would then
decide whether it was appropriate to go forward. He
observed that it would not change the backlog of cases
waiting to be investigated. He noted that it would be
arbitrary for the staff to dismiss cases prior to
investigation.
9:48:51 AM
Representative Kerttula asked if there was a regulatory
ability to go immediately to the Director if evidence was
not available from the onset. Mr. Koteff noted that there
was a screening process, but not a regulatory discretion to
which she referred. Once a complaint is filed, the
Commission has a mediation program to handle cases more
quickly. As for evaluation of evidence, statute mandates
that every case be investigated thoroughly. The standard of
substantial evidence was not so high as to make
determination difficult. Some cases are resolved more
easily without as much evidence. He explained that
sometimes discrimination is not immediately apparent.
9:51:42 AM
Representative Kerttula also asked how many cases were
turned down after the 180-day limitation, and whether any
were pre-screened. Mr. Koteff did not have these figures.
He stated that the Commission established a regulation for
the time for filing of 180 days. The time for filing has
always been in regulation but not always the same time; it
was previously 300 days, changed due to resources available.
It was believed that the 180 days were adequate. Although
he conceded that perhaps some cases had not been filed, he
stated that it was difficult to quantify the number of cases
that were not investigated past the time limit. He added
that Alaskans could be referred to the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) whose limit was 300
days to file. This occurred when employers employ 15 people
or more.
Responding to a follow up by Representative Kerttula, Mr.
Koteff conceded that there were valid cases that had
exceeded the 180 time limit, and stated that in those cases
they were usually referred to the EEOC. Since those cases
were presented just through recitation of facts by a
potential complainant, they could not evaluate evidence
without benefit of a full investigation.
9:55:13 AM
Representative Kerttula observed that the main problem was
adequate staffing to handle the number of cases, and not the
length of the timeline. She proposed that 180 days was too
short a timeline.
9:55:53 AM
Representative Joule concurred that the resources of
personnel seemed to be the main issue of operating the
Commission. But he proposed that expanding the time would
not solve this issue. He maintained that unless the
resources were granted, changing the timeline might be
counterproductive.
Representative Kerttula WITHRDREW Amendment #1.
9:57:17 AM
Representative Kerttula MOVED Amendment #2. Representative
Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Kerttula explained the amendment. She
proposed that since the Commission might not be able to
quickly investigate cases, a complainant could approach a
private attorney with the case, and if the case proved
successful, they could recoup the attorney's fees. She
added that there would also be a denial if the case was
proven frivolous, causing the complainant to be liable for
attorney's fees. She noted that the Judiciary Committee had
worked on this approach, and suggested that the Committee
ought to defer to their work.
9:59:01 AM
Mr. Ruaro stated that the Commission opposed Amendment #2.
He pointed out that no one from the public had come forward
to request the Amendment. He also proposed that if the
amendment were passed, employers would receive demand
letters from plaintiff's attorneys, threatening them with
the payment of legal fees unless they made amends.
10:00:16 AM
Representative Kerttula maintained that such threatening
behavior was not tolerated by the Bar Association, and noted
that it was unethical. She also noted that lawyers often
did not take these kinds of cases, since they were difficult
and represented small fees. She expressed her belief that
not to prosecute these kinds of cases was not good for
society. She proposed that this was one method of ensuring
that people with these complaints received justice. She
expressed openness to working with the industry and the
Department of Law to streamline the amendment and make it
more successful on the Floor.
10:02:26 AM
Representative Stoltze referred to his history as a
legislator, and frustrations he experienced in advocating
for small businesses in his district when dealing with this
kind of process. He suggested that there were protections
in our society for individuals, and that businesses also
needed protections. He proposed that there were two sides
to the issue.
10:04:56 AM
Representative Joule discussed his experience as being
discriminated against for height in trying to become a State
Trooper. He stated that at the time, he was unaware of
avenues through which he could pursue a claim of
discrimination.
10:05:40 AM
Representative Kerttula acknowledged that small businesses
had a difficult time dealing with these issues and committed
to advocating for them as well.
Mr. Ruaro noted that the cost of discrimination claims were
not typically covered by the insurance of small businesses,
and that attorney fees would come from their pocket.
A ROLL CALL VOTE was taken on Amendment #2.
In Favor: Kertulla; Joule
Opposed: Stoltze; Foster; Holm; Kelly; Chenault
Amendment #2 FAILED on a vote of 5 to 2.
Representative Chenault pointed out the two zero fiscal
notes, previously prepared prior to the amendments, from the
Office of the Governor, Commissions and the Department of
Law.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT SB 132 out of
Committee with two zero fiscal notes (#3, OOG; #4 LAW) and
individual recommendations. There being NO OBJECTIONS it was
so ordered.
CSSB132 (FIN) was REPORTED OUT of Committee with two
previously published zero fiscal notes (#3, OOG; #4, LAW)
and No Recommendation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|