05/09/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Assistant Manager noted that House Bill 2223 related to dis- crimination suits and the Committee had voted 2-1 to take no position. Ms. Merck explained that this bill would allow an individual who is filing a complaint for discrimination to have only a one-year wait before action could be taken rather than the present situation of at least two years before the State Bureau of Labor would look at the individual's complaint, or a nine-year backlog with the Federal Bureau of Labor. She noted the bill would also allow for punitive damages. Mr. Obie noted his feeling was that there were many laws on the books and the Legislative Subcommittee was not in an adequate position to deal with the matter, feeling they needed some expert advice to educate them in regard to this issue. Mr. Williams con- curred with Mr. Obie's statement, saying he had no opposi- tion to the concept, but saw no reason to support it, either. He said he felt he should have some basis to make a state- ment for support, but felt unqualified to do so. e Assistant Manager noted there are three remedies available to c1t1zens: A person could file with the federal government, which might take at least nine years; a person could file with the State, which might take at least two to three years; or a person could file with the City. The last remedy does not provide for payment of money damages to the complainant. Ms. Merck noted the hardship both for the employer and the person filing the complaint in having to wait at least the two- to three-year period with the State, that the employer had to retain an attorney from the time the complaint had been filed, which resulted in expenses for him; the citizen filing the complaint might lose witnesses, lose records, and find it very difficult to prove a case after such a time lapse. e Mr. Delay said he was in favor of supporting this bill, noting it was a hoax to have anti-discrimination laws and not have a meaningful action available to the citizens. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen to support House Bill 2223. Mr. Haws noted agreement with the concept that Eugene should support this bill. Mr. Obie expressed gratification for clari- fication which was made regarding the three areas of hearing available to a citizen, but said it could be a very expensive proposition for either the City, the individual, or the employ- er. He felt testimony should be taken from people involved on both sides, so the Council would have an opportunity to hear expert testimony in regard to this issue. Mr. Delay noted that he had heard no reason to object to the support of this bill. Mr. Williams said he felt that the Council was trying to take a position for the City of Eugene, but is making no effort to get a balanced presentation from both sides. He felt it unwise for the City to be spending public money to support a group which was taking a position in which the City of Eugene was not getting clear and balanced testimony from both sides in regard to what effect the bill would have. Ms. Merck noted that the bill had been introduced by the Commissioner of the Bureau of . 311 5/9/77--22