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, "Applicability of Human Rights Commission."
3:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 13. He stated that the state of
Alaska has had a Human Rights Commission since 1963. The Human
Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction over non-profit
organizations. He said that according to Legislative Research
Services, it is unclear why this is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the Human Rights Commission
was created during a time in which there was work being done to
eliminate discrimination based on factors such as race and
ethnicity. He said that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) acts as a "parent organization" and generally
covers larger employers. The EEOC pays a fee to the Human
Rights Commission to handle some cases that it normally would.
He reiterated that HB 13 would give the Human Rights Commission
jurisdiction over non-profit organizations. He said that the
Human Rights Commission operates by investigating meritorious
claims of discrimination and then trying to conciliate both
sides of a case to keep the case from going to court. The
agency can take cases to court if a reconciliation agreement is
not reached.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in 2018, the commissioners
that had been appointed by then Governor Bill Walker supported
the change that would be made by HB 13. Last fall,
commissioners appointed by Governor Mike Dunleavy agreed with
the previous commissioners.
3:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he believes the bill is necessary
to address a "gap" in jurisdiction. If a person is
discriminated against for housing or employment, they are able
to take their claims to the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission
(AERC), but there are people in other parts of the state that do
not have such an opportunity if they work for a non-profit
because the Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction. He
noted that only nine states lack protections for non-profit
employees, and approximately 50 cases were not "screened in" by
the Human Rights Commission due to a lack of jurisdiction.
3:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many cases the Human Rights
Commission deals with per year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was unsure, but Robert
Corbisier, the Executive Director at the Alaska State Commission
for Human Rights, would be able to answer later.
3:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE declared a potential conflict, as his
wife serves as a commissioner on the Human Rights Commission.
CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Ruffridge.
3:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in the 2021 report from the
Alaska Human Rights Commission, there was a peak of 1,733 cases
in the highest year, 405 of which were found to have a basis.
In 2021, the number dropped to 674, which he believes 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, 139 cases that were found to have basis, 119 cases that
were taken in, and 106 complaints filed.
3:27:43 PM
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson,
Alaska State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "HB 13: Applicability of Human Rights Commission" on
behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor. He added
that the proposed legislation would amend AS 18.80.300 sub-
section (5) to amend the definition of employer to include non-
profit organizations, which would give the Human Rights
Commission jurisdiction over them in discrimination cases.
3:29:19 PM
MR. SCHROEDER moved to slide 2 and stated that the EEOC is the
federal equivalent to the Alaska State Commission on Human
Rights (ASCHR), created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to deal with employment-related discrimination. He noted
that the EEOC covers employers with 15 or more employees, while
the Human Rights Commission 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
that does not include non-profit organizations under the
jurisdiction of its human rights commission. Moving back to
slide 2, he said that municipal level human rights commissions
such as the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission and the Juneau
Human Rights Commission (JHRC) have non-profit organizations
included under their jurisdictions.
MR. SCHROEDER added that while there are other commissions with
the ability to cover non-profit organizations when it comes to
employment discrimination, it is still important for ASCHR to
gain jurisdiction over those types of cases. The location of
the non-profit organization matters, so a resident of one area
would be unable to go to the human rights commission of their
municipality if the non-profit organization was located in
another area. He said that there are areas of Alaska with
significant numbers of non-profit employees that would not have
a municipal commission to go to if they faced discrimination.
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 bill would do, saying that it
would change the definition of "employer" in AS 18.80.300 sub-
section (5) to include non-profit organizations, with exceptions
for religious, fraternal, and social non-profit organizations.
3:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked if Representative Josephson could
give a specific example of an instance in which this bill would
be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was unable to give an
example due to cases dealing with non-profit organizations being
dispensed with because of a lack of jurisdiction. He added that
Mr. Corbisier may be able to give an example.
3:37:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Representative Josephson if he had
reviewed any of the minutes from the original bill that created
ASCHR in order to better understand why the makers of the bill
did not include non-profit organizations from the beginning.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was informed by
Legislative Research Services that due to the age of the
measures, the records are limited and there are no minutes
available to provide context to why that may be the case. He
said that he was informed by Legislative Research Services that
records prior to 1990 are difficult to find, if they can be
found at all. In response to a follow-up question, he said that
he could try asking his father, who was a legislator at the
time, why that was the case.
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 those definitions. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier
as having a more complete answer to the relation in definitions.
3:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked what the rationale is for excluding
religious and fraternal organizations, and what the definition
of a fraternal organization would be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that HB 13 covers an area of
the law that is "evolving"; as an example, he said that he would
not want to require churches to ordain female clergy if that
went against their religious beliefs. He said that the Boy
Scouts of America would be an example of a social or fraternal
organization, and although they have since reversed their
position, there was a case in which they were not required to
have an Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ)
Scout Leader. He said that the bill ultimately reflected the
language that 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 Alaska State Constitution, which is the section that
provides for civil rights. He said ASCHR is the legislature's
implementation of that constitutional provision. He said 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
he said often stem from one of the previous types of cases. He
noted that the Fairbanks Diversity Council and the Juneau Human
Rights Commission are advisory councils without the ability or
resources to enforce decisions. He noted AERC is the only other
entity in Alaska that has the ability and authorization to
implement and enforce decisions. He stated that this gap means
that small non-profit 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 cases that are co-jurisdictional. The
commission does not keep track of the cases that it screens out.
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 non-discrimination policy that complies with state
and federal laws. In 2022, ASCHR received 814 cases, 184 of
which had basis, 164 of which were taken in formally, and 134 of
which were signed and investigated.
3:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX declared 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 if the EEOC would take cases dealing
with a non-profit organization if that organization had 15 or
more employees.
MR. CORBISIER answered that it would and added that EEOC refers
all employment cases in which the employer has 15 or more
employees to ASCHR or AERC, if the employer is in Anchorage. If
that employer is a non-profit, Mr. Corbisier must inform the
EEOC that ASCHR cannot take the case. In response to a follow
up question, he answered that he is unsure why the threshold for
EEOC is 15 employees but speculated that it is related to the
size of cases the federal government wants to address.
3:55:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation on the
jurisdictional gap present in employment discrimination cases.
MR. CORBISIER answered that AERC's jurisdiction is similar to
that of ASCHR's, but AERC has explicit jurisdiction over cases
involving LGBTQ discrimination as a protected class. He said
AERC also has jurisdiction over non-profit organizations that
are located within the Municipality of Anchorage, while EEOC has
jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees, including
non-profit 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
non-profit organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the cost of running ASCHR
and its budget.
MR. CORBISIER 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
to ASCHR from the EEOC and 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 of Alaska. He
added that most of the cases being rejected were rejected
because they were "obviously" non-jurisdictional and ASCHR did
not want to give "false hope" to the people making those
complaints. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the number of cases to
decline due to less people working and an increased amount of
remote work; the number of cases have increased since things
started returning to normal. 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 language used in the
commission's resolution relied more on the religious exemption
provided for in regulation. He confirmed that the bill's draft
did not change the religious exemption language and removed the
word "club."
4:05:38 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that HB 13 was held over.