Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />, <br /> M I NUT E S <br />e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br /> August 22, 1977 <br /> Regular meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br /> His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. August 22, 1977, in the Council <br /> Chambers, with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, Tom Williams <br /> Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. <br /> D.W. Hamel was absent. <br /> 1. Public Hearings <br />I-A-l A. Human Rights Ordinance, amending Section 4.990(2), raising penalty <br /> to $1,000 <br /> Manager reported this recommendation came from the Human Rights <br /> Council in thei~ annual report. The previous fine of $100 had little <br /> enforcement effect. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> George Russell, 3435 Chambers Street, said the main thing to empha- <br /> size was the value of the increase is not for punitive effect. <br /> More importantly, it hopefully would act as a deterrent to employers, <br />e thus being a preventative measure. It would emphasize the City's <br /> seriousness in trying to eliminate the vestages of discrimination <br /> in Eugene, and would encourage the use of the prehearing mediation <br /> process and encourage emphasis to resolve discrimination complaints <br /> at the earliest point possible. <br /> Eric Larsen, 2635 Jackson, Attorney and Chairman of the Oregon State <br /> Bar Labor Committee, spoke against the proposed ordinance change. <br /> He felt that in Paragraph 2(a) of the proposed ordinance, innocent <br /> mistake and willful violation would be dealt with in the same way <br /> and some distinction should be made between the willful and non- <br /> willful violation and between civil and criminal penalty. He cited <br /> EEOC and Federal Civil Service agencies were trying to set up <br /> guidelines regarding discrimination and as yet had not been able <br /> to agree. He questioned if these agencies could not agree on what <br /> constitutes discrimination, then how would employers be able to? <br /> He also thought a $1,000 fine was too much. He felt there needed <br /> to be a civil penalty, but a distinction should be made between <br /> the willful and unwillful violation. Also, he wondered if the <br /> complainant would be encouraged to go to court with hopes of re- <br /> ceiving $1,000 and thereby not be encouraged to settle the suit <br /> in the prehearing process. The proposed ordinance would also place <br /> an undue burden on the employer, if he were involved in city, state, <br /> and federal litigation. <br />e <br /> 8/22/77--1 <br /> Co3/ <br />