Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> i <br /> I <br />Under Paragraph 2(b), Mr. Larsen's concern was the inclusion of a . <br />second or additional violation. His concern was that if an employer <br />were found to be in violation of discrimination with one employee, <br />that other employees would then file a class action suit upon the <br />same employer, before allowing him time to correct his practice. <br />He felt this section could be corrected by taking out the words, <br />"willfully violating a second time." <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony <br />presented. <br />Mr. Obie asked Mr. Russell, based on the testimony by Mr. Larsen <br />regarding terminology, whether any discussion regarding willful <br />and innocent violation of discrimination had taken place with <br />employers who might have had difficulty. Mr. Russell replied no. <br />However, he explained Council should understand the ordinance sets <br />only a maximum $1,000 fine and the judge could award up to that <br />amount, based on the evidence presented. Mr. Obie then wondered <br />if Mr. Russell agreed with Mr. Larsen's testimony that there could <br />be possibility of class action suits. He wondered if one employee <br />became aware of a discrimination suit in which a fine was assessed, <br />that others might automatically also file such a discrimination suit. <br />Mr. Russell did not feel that would occur, although he did not <br />respond in a legal sense, since he is not an attorney. <br />Assistant Manager noted to Council it was important to keep in <br />perspective what had transpired prior to appearance in court. He e <br />noted that the parties had come together at least twice with a <br />professional arbitrator who attempted to settle differences. He <br />said it was not a problem of employees holding out to get a claim, <br />that the problem was generally the reverse--there has not been <br />anything that has had any effect on employers' behavior. He empha- <br />sized that an employer who allegedly discriminates would have a <br />great deal of time to correct that practice through this mediation. <br />Council should keep in total perspective that before the court <br />appearance, the participating parties have every effort to recon- <br />cile the discrimination disagreement. <br />Andy Clement, Human Rights Specialist, reiterated Assistant Manager's <br />remarks about attempts to reconcile any complaint before going <br />to court. He said only one case to date had gone to a Hearings <br />Official, and all other cases had been mediated informally. <br />Mr. Williams had two questions: 1) What evidence was there to <br />document the claim that the $100 fine was inadequate? and 2) Why <br />is the City involved in this issue at all? He said persons had <br />recourse through both state and federal agencies for discrimination <br />suits and wondered if there was a need for a third level of govern- <br />ment (city) to be involved. Mr. Russell reiterated his earlier <br />concerns. He said employers were not encouraged not to discrimiate <br />because the ordinance was not tough enough. The Human Rights <br /> - <br /> ~3~ 8/22/77--2 <br />