Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

02/09/2022 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:36:06 PM Start
01:36:43 PM HB17
02:31:36 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Please Note Time Change --
*+ HB 17 DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT. TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        HB 17-DISCRIMINATION: GENDER ID.;SEXUAL ORIENT.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:36:43 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 17, "An  Act adding to  the powers and  duties of                                                               
the  State  Commission for  Human  Rights;  and relating  to  and                                                               
prohibiting discrimination based on  sexual orientation or gender                                                               
identity or expression."                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:37:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDY  JOSEPHSON,  Alaska  State  Legislature,  as                                                               
prime  sponsor,  presented HB  17.    He  said that  many  states                                                               
protect   the  interests   of  sexual   orientation  and   gender                                                               
expression of individuals  in civil rights code, and  Alaska as a                                                               
state  does not.   He  added that  some municipalities  have such                                                               
protections.  He suggested that  this results in a "patchwork" of                                                               
[expected] treatment  of individuals regarding  his/her sexuality                                                               
or  gender   identity  as  it   pertains  to   lending,  housing,                                                               
employment, and  other areas.  He  stated that HB 17,  if passed,                                                               
would  expand the  authority of  the Alaska  Commission on  Human                                                               
Rights under Title  18 in Alaska statute to  add investigation of                                                               
claims of  discrimination based on sexual  orientation and gender                                                               
identity.   He explained that  previous versions of the  bill had                                                               
been heard, and that U.  S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy                                                               
had  ruled  in  Obergefell  v Hodges  that  basic  constitutional                                                             
principles allow  for individuals of  the same sex to  marry each                                                               
other.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:42:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  stated that U.S. Supreme  Court Justice                                                               
Neil Gorsuch's  opinion in  Bostock v.  Clayton County  had ruled                                                             
that  discrimination  in  employment   because  of  one's  sexual                                                               
orientation is  unconstitutional.  He  explained that  the Alaska                                                               
Commission   on   Human   Rights   had  accepted   a   claim   of                                                               
discrimination regarding  an individual's employment.   He stated                                                               
that HB  17 would  codify protections like  the rulings  found in                                                               
Bostock v. Clayton County and  to align with the current practice                                                             
of the commission.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON explained  that the  commission is  not                                                               
permitted to  award punitive  damages and  is allowed  to enforce                                                               
the law by mediating a settlement prior to litigation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN  asked   whether   the  commission   had                                                               
interpreted that  the ruling of  Bostock v. Clayton  County would                                                             
apply   to  claims   beyond   those   pertaining  to   employment                                                               
[discrimination.]                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON answered  that it  was his  belief that                                                               
the  commission had  expanded its  interpretation beyond  [solely                                                               
employment discrimination.]                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:48:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MAX  KOHN, Staff,  Representative  Andy  Josephson, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature,  on behalf  of prime  sponsor, presented  during the                                                               
hearing  on  HB  17.    He drew  attention  to  the  presentation                                                               
entitled,   "  HB   17  PowerPoint   Presentation  2.9.2022.pdf,"                                                               
[included   in  the   committee   packet]   and  summarized   the                                                               
information  on   page  2,  which   read  as   follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     ?  In  1945  the  Territorial  Legislature  passed  the                                                                    
     AntiDiscrimination Act.                                                                                                    
     ?    They    addressed   discrimination    in    public                                                                    
     accommodations  almost  20  years before  the  national                                                                    
     Civil Rights Act of 1964.                                                                                                  
     ? Today:                                                                                                                   
     ?  Race, religion,  color, national  ancestry, physical                                                                    
     or mental                                                                                                                  
     disability,  age,  sex,   marital  status,  changes  in                                                                    
     marital status, pregnancy,  or parenthood are protected                                                                    
     classes from discrimination.                                                                                               
     ?  Discrimination   is  prohibited  in  the   areas  of                                                                    
     employment,     credit     and    financing,     public                                                                    
     accommodations,   and  sale,   lease,   or  rental   or                                                                    
     property.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  KOHN noted  that  the commission  deals  with cases  of                                                                    
discrimination in  housing, employment,  and financing.   He                                                                    
suggested that  members of the  Lesbian, Gay,  Bisexual, and                                                                    
Transgender  (LGBT) community  are left  without protections                                                                    
in law.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.   KOHN  drew   attention  to   the  slide   entitled,  "LGBTQ                                                               
Discrimination in Alaska," and stated  that the data reflected on                                                               
the slide was similar to national  data, as depicted on the slide                                                               
entitled,  "National  Rates."    He  read  the  quote  attributed                                                               
Justice  Gorsuch, contained  on slide  7, which  read as  follows                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     "Today  we must  decide  whether an  employer can  fire                                                                    
     someone  simply for  being  homosexual or  transgender.                                                                    
     The  answer   is  clear.  An  employer   who  fires  an                                                                    
     individual  for being  homosexual or  transgender fires                                                                    
     that person  for traits  or actions  it would  not have                                                                    
     questioned in members  of a different sex.  Sex plays a                                                                    
     necessary  and  undisguisable  role  in  the  decision,                                                                    
     exactly what Title VII forbids."                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOHN stated that HB 17  would codify current practices of the                                                               
commission into law.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
1:52:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOHN  drew attention to slides  10 and 11 which  depicts laws                                                               
in    Alaskan   communities    protecting   against    employment                                                               
discrimination,  and laws  around the  nation, respectively.   He                                                               
noted that only  12 states do not have  protections explicitly in                                                               
law against  discrimination in  employment.   He stated  that the                                                               
federal Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission exists to remedy                                                               
claims  of  discrimination.   He  characterized  the  process  as                                                               
burdensome  to individuals  and suggested  that the  state should                                                               
become  involved  on  behalf  of   individuals.    He  then  drew                                                               
attention   to  slide   13,  entitled   "LGBT  Non-Discrimination                                                               
Policies:  Good for  Commerce, which  read  as follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
       ? 96% of top Fortune 500 companies include sexual                                                                        
     orientation in their non-discrimination policies.                                                                          
     ? Economic benefits include:                                                                                               
     ? Higher recruitment & retention                                                                                           
     ? Increased generation of ideas & innovation                                                                               
     ? Diversified consumer base                                                                                                
     ? Increased employee productivity                                                                                          
     ? Securing more public sector clients                                                                                      
     ? Improved employee relations & morale                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOHN stated that most Fortune 500 companies have such                                                                       
policies in place because it is good for business.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  KOHN summarized  the sectional  analysis beginning  on slide                                                               
15.   He  explained that  HB  17 would  add "sexual  orientation,                                                               
gender identity  or expression" to  existing statute  relating to                                                               
the State  Commission on  Human Rights.   He stated  that "public                                                               
accommodation" is defined in statute  and includes businesses and                                                               
public places.   He further  stated that "sexual  orientation and                                                               
gender expression" is also defined in statute.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
1:56:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON stated  that he  expected questions  to                                                               
arise regarding  faith-based organizations [pertaining to  HB 17]                                                               
and  stated   that  the  U.S.   Supreme  Court  Case   Fulton  v.                                                             
Philadelphia had found that Catholic  Social Services in the City                                                             
of Philadelphia was not obligated  to include same-sex couples in                                                               
its foster care program.  He  cautioned listeners to keep in mind                                                               
that there exist "carve-outs" for religious exemptions.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
1:58:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROSE  OHARA-JOLLEY,  Alaska  State Director,  Planned  Parenthood                                                               
Alliance  Advocates of  Alaska, testified  in support  of HB  17.                                                               
They  explained  that  protections against  discrimination  exist                                                               
based  on race,  religion,  color, age,  disability, and  marital                                                               
status and the  protections do not extend  to LGBT[Queer] people.                                                               
They   explained  that   many  employees   hide  his/her   sexual                                                               
orientation  or gender  identity, are  paid less,  and experience                                                               
fewer employment opportunities than  their non-LGBTQ peers.  They                                                               
offered  that 44  percent  of LGBTQ  residents  in Anchorage  had                                                               
reported harassment;  16 percent  reported that they  were forced                                                               
to leave jobs due to  harassment; 21 percent reported having been                                                               
turned down for  a job; 18 percent reported having  been denied a                                                               
promotion;  and 15  percent  reported having  been  fired.   They                                                               
stated that  they identified as  a member of the  queer community                                                               
and, in  doing so,  was at  risk of  termination from  their job,                                                               
housing,  and  discrimination in  lending.    They stated  strong                                                               
support for HB 17.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:02:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KURKA  referred   to  Representative  Josephson's                                                               
earlier  statement of  "carveouts" for  religious exemptions  and                                                               
asked how those would be addressed in the bill.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  explained   that  carveouts  exist  by                                                               
operation of case law.  He  explained that federal case law would                                                               
be applicable to courts in Alaska.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KURKA  asked  whether  the ruling  in  Fulton  v.                                                             
Philadelphia would apply  [in Alaska] due to it  having been made                                                             
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a different jurisdiction.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  explained that the ruling  in Fulton v.                                                             
Philadelphia had been made by the  U.S. Supreme Court and was the                                                             
highest jurisdiction.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. KOHN  stated that there existed  at least one case  in Alaska                                                               
in which a  man was denied lodging at a  homeless shelter because                                                               
he had a service animal.  He  stated that the ruling of the court                                                               
had  found  that  the  shelter was  not  a  public  accommodation                                                               
because of its status as a religious organization.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN  added that the  Ninth Circuit Court of  Appeals was                                                               
bound, as a lower court, to the ruling of the supreme court.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:07:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA  asked how  the sponsor would  interpret the                                                               
proposed   protection   would   apply  to   schools   as   public                                                               
accommodation regarding  gendered bathroom use  and participation                                                               
in sports.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that  the commission would not                                                               
likely have  jurisdiction over  such a dispute.   He  stated that                                                               
the  bill  would add  the  terms  sexual orientation  and  gender                                                               
identity  or  expression  as  protected  classes  to  the  claims                                                               
qualified  to   be  investigated  by  the   commission  regarding                                                               
employment, housing, and lending discrimination allegations.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KURKA asked  whether the entire antidiscrimination                                                               
law   applies   to   public   accommodation   except   for   what                                                               
Representative Josephson had referenced.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JOSEPHSON   explained  that   issues   involving                                                               
transgender athletes may be based  in confusion and consternation                                                               
on  the part  of some  individuals and  drew a  distinction that,                                                               
should the  same transgender person experience  discrimination in                                                               
the   context   of   employment,   housing,   or   lending,   the                                                               
discrimination  would not  be permissible.   He  offered that  AS                                                               
18.80 would  not answer questions regarding  transgender students                                                               
or athletes.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:10:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  Rose Ohara-Jolley  whether, should                                                               
they be  fired due to  their gender identity, whether  they could                                                               
file a complaint.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Rose  OHara-Jolley stated  their belief  that federal  employment                                                               
law protecting  against discrimination for gender  identity would                                                               
apply  to employers  with 15  or more  employees.   She suggested                                                               
that,  should  HB  17  pass,  it would  become  evident  for  all                                                               
businesses  and   employers  that  such  discrimination   is  not                                                               
allowed, and it would provide for a remedy at the state level.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether  the bill sponsor shared the                                                               
understanding that  the previous example of  discrimination would                                                               
not be considered by the commission [should HB 17 not pass.]                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:12:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  answered   that,  under  the  Dunleavy                                                               
Administration,  the commission  may investigate  such claims  of                                                               
discrimination.  He cautioned that  any future administration may                                                               
hold a  different policy position  and cease  such investigations                                                               
in  the absence  of a  law compelling  it to  do so.   He  drew a                                                               
comparison between  the Bostock  v. Clayton  County case  and the                                                             
Brown v. Board  of Education case, the latter having  been a case                                                             
predicated  on desegregation  of  public schools  and "it  wasn't                                                               
about water  fountains."  He stated  that the system of  Jim Crow                                                               
[laws]  had  subsequently  imploded,  over  several  years.    He                                                               
expressed  his  appreciation  for the  Dunleavy  Administration's                                                               
having   addressed   matters   of  alleged   discrimination   and                                                               
postulated that the policy "may not stick" in the future.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   EASTMAN   asked   whether  an   individual   who                                                               
experienced discrimination in pay  [due to sexual orientation and                                                               
gender  identity   or  expression]   could  pursue  a   claim  of                                                               
discrimination with the commission.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  answered yes  and added that  each case                                                               
is   unique  and   would  be   subject   to  strong   evidentiary                                                               
requirements, such as  a case in which an  exemplary employee was                                                               
was repeatedly overlooked for promotions.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  that would  change, should                                                               
HB 17 pass.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  answered  that  it  would  change  and                                                               
explained that, by codifying  [protections for sexual orientation                                                               
and gender identity  or expression] into law,  the practice would                                                               
evolve from case law into code.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:16:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN referred  to  section  11, which  defines                                                               
gender  identity  or  expression,  and asked  the  scope  of  the                                                               
definition  would be  limited  only to  gender  as compared  with                                                               
expression such as self-image, or appearance, or behavior.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  answered  that self-image  relates  to                                                               
gender and drew attention to section  11, on line 9, and reminded                                                               
the  committee   that  there   would  exist   strong  evidentiary                                                               
requirements.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN   asked  whether  the   definition  would                                                               
exclude gender-fluid individuals.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that it would not.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN asked  whether a  gender-fluid individual                                                               
would be subject to fewer protections.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  stated that  a claim, being  subject to                                                               
strong  evidentiary  requirements,  would   require  that  it  be                                                               
genuine  and bona  fide  as a  persistent  self-image, worthy  of                                                               
respect.      He  noted   that   Justice   Gorsuch  opined   that                                                               
discrimination against  an individual  for sexual  identity would                                                               
be  categorized as  discrimination against  an attribute  of sex.                                                               
He stated that  the court's decision had resulted in  a change to                                                               
the  current  administration's  policy  to  be  one  inclined  to                                                               
investigate such  claims and that  codifying such  protections in                                                               
law would prevent a reversal of the current practice.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:20:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KURKA  drew attention  to  sections  of the  bill                                                               
which  refer to  public accommodation  and suggested  that public                                                               
restrooms in  public schools  would be categorized  as such.   He                                                               
asked how the  bill would affect individuals who  may identify as                                                               
a woman, as a biological male, entering a women's restroom.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that a  student would not be an                                                               
employee at  a public  accommodation of a  school.   He suggested                                                               
that  the  Human  Rights  Commissioner  should  be  consulted  to                                                               
discuss the matter more in-depth.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN asked  whether  the ruling  in  Bostock v.  Clayton                                                             
County had been  confined to only matters  of [discrimination] in                                                             
employment  because  that had  been  the  basis of  the  original                                                               
complaint and  whether Representative  Josephson held  the belief                                                               
that, had the matter of housing  been brought before the court in                                                               
the   complaint,    the   ruling    would   apply    equally   to                                                               
[discrimination] in housing.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  answered yes, and that  Justice Gorsuch                                                               
had been  adamant that  the ruling  had been  based on  the Civil                                                               
Rights Act of 1964.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked whether  the sponsor  would support                                                               
an amendment that  would explicitly state that the  law would not                                                               
apply to women's sports.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated  that he would not  be in support                                                               
of  such  an amendment  and  respectfully  characterized such  an                                                               
amendment as  a distraction [from  the intent  of the bill.]   He                                                               
noted  that  there  had been  controversy  recently  regarding  a                                                               
collegiate athletic  swimmer at  Penn State  University regarding                                                               
the athlete's eligibility due to the swimmer's [gender] status.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:25:01 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  asked how  the bill aligned  with Article                                                               
1, Section 25  of the Alaska State Constitution,  which refers to                                                               
marriage.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated  that he had no  concern with the                                                               
proposed bill regarding  the clause in question.   He stated that                                                               
the  United  States Constitution  had  treated  slaves as  three-                                                               
fifths of a person [and  was later overturned.]  He characterized                                                               
the clause in  the Alaska State Constitution as  the most current                                                               
historical  reflection of  the will  of Alaskan  people regarding                                                               
marriage  from 1998  and would  have  no effect  on the  proposed                                                               
bill.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked,  since Representative Josephson had                                                               
claimed   that  this   bill  would   not  be   affected  by   the                                                               
constitutional  clause,  what  other parts  of  the  constitution                                                               
would not be binding.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected  to offer that Article 1,  Section 25 of                                                               
the Alaska State Constitution had  been ruled unconstitutional by                                                               
federal court  and that other  sections of the  constitution were                                                               
not germane to the bill under consideration.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:27:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should  HB 17 pass, whether uniform                                                               
[requirements]  and school  and  workplace dress  codes would  be                                                               
impacted,  considering that  it would  include protections  of an                                                               
individual's self-image.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  answered that it was  his understanding                                                               
that  employers  may  still require  reasonable  and  appropriate                                                               
dress  codes and  uniforms.   He  suggested  that the  protection                                                               
would  exist  should  an  employer  state  that  he/she  believed                                                               
someone to be a  man and require that person to  dress like a man                                                               
and  that the  protection  was supported  by  Bostock v.  Clayton                                                             
County.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN stated  that the  United States  Military                                                               
had  historically had  only  two  types of  uniforms  "as far  as                                                               
gender goes"  and asked whether  an employer in  Alaska requiring                                                               
an  employee  to  select  only one  of  two  [available  uniform]                                                               
options would violate the rights protected in the proposed bill.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered  that he did not  think that it                                                               
would.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:29:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a violation would result in                                                                
a case where a retailer offered a class solely to members of the                                                                
transgender community, should HB 17 pass.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he could not conceive the                                                                
scenario as being related to [one's] employment.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 17 was heard and held.                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 17 v. A 2.18.2021.PDF HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Sponsor Statement v. A 2.9.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.9.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Bostock v. Clayton County - Oyez 6.15.2020.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Bostock v. Clayton County - US Supreme Court 6.15.2020.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Facebook Post 12.2.2020.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Resolution 11.2.2016.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Alaska Public Media Article - History of AK LGBT Rights 8.18.2015.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - 2015 AK Transgender Survey 2.7.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Human Rights Campaign Employment Laws Map 1.19.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Report by Melissa Green - November 2011 2.7.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - LGBT Workplace Policies - Williams Institute - October 2011 2.7.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Supporting Document - 2010 LGBT Census Snapshot - Williams Institute 2.7.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 Fiscal Note GOV-HRC 2.7.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HJUD 3/28/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17
HB 17 PowerPoint Presentation 2.9.2022.pdf HJUD 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM
HJUD 3/14/2022 1:00:00 PM
HB 17