HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 2072

BYHouse Committee on State Government (originally sponsored by Representatives Belcher, Anderson, Wineberry, Nelson, Locke, Leonard, Appelwick, Nutley, Cole, Jacobsen, Wang and R. King) 

Adjusting the human rights commission's jurisdiction over specified types of discrimination.

House Committe on State Government

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (5)

      Signed by Representatives Todd, Chair; Anderson, Vice Chair; R. Fisher, R. King and O'Brien.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (4)

      Signed by Representatives McLean, Ranking Republican Member; Hankins, Morris and Silver.

House Staff:Barbara McLain (786-7135)

AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 12, 1990

BACKGROUND:

The Washington Human Rights Commission oversees and enforces Washington's "Law Against Discrimination."  The law attempts to reduce or eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicap.  Generally, the law addresses discrimination in areas of fundamental needs and rights, such as voting, employment, housing, access to public places, and eligibility for insurance or credit.

Federal law also deals with anti-discrimination.  For example, the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.  In 1988, amendments to the Fair Housing Act added families with children (termed "familial status") to the list of persons protected against discrimination, and provided the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with increased enforcement authority over the act.  The amendments prohibit an owner from refusing to sell or rent to a family with children unless the housing is intended for older persons.

A person who is discriminated against in a real estate transaction can seek remedies:  (1) through a civil action, (2) through the state Human Rights Commission, (3) through the state Consumer Protection Act, or (4) under the federal Fair Housing Act.

Local ordinances may also extend protection against discrimination beyond state or federal law.  For example, Seattle prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation."  Tacoma adopted a similar ordinance in the spring of 1989, but the voters narrowly repealed the ordinance at the November election.

SUMMARY:

The list of classes of persons generally covered by the Law Against Discrimination is expanded to include persons who may be discriminated against on the basis of familial status or sexual orientation.

Specific protections against discrimination in credit and insurance transactions, employment, union membership, access to public places, and real estate transactions are extended to those who may be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

Specific protection on the basis of familial status is added for real estate transactions only.

"Sexual orientation" is defined as including heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.

"Marital status" (already a protected class) is given the definition of married or unmarried individuals.

"Familial status" is defined as a parent, stepparent, adoptive or foster parent, guardian, or custodian who resides with minor children, or a pregnant women or person in the process of securing legal custody of minor children.  This definition does not apply in certain circumstances having to do with real estate:  (1) where the building or property is operated under a federal or state program to assist the elderly; (2) where the building is intended for and is solely occupied by persons over 62; and (3) where the building is intended to be occupied by at least one person per unit age 55 or older with specially designed features for the elderly and where at least 80 percent of the units are occupied by those over 55.

The Human Rights Commission has the authority to provide the same administrative remedies as federal law with regard to discrimination in housing, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Refernell Thompson, Human Rights Commission; Father Bill Heric; David Austin; Pat Roche, Dignity U.S.A.; Dr. Mark Michael; Reverend Robert Fitzgerald, Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays; Ray Jager, Patrick Berenger, Eric Hess, Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Drop- In Group; John Stevens; Edward Murray, Commission for Lesbians & Gays; Jack Goldman, Greater Seattle Business Association; Curt Pavola; Scott Fields, Stonewall Committee; Chris Allmack; Linda Stosalovich; Rebecca Summers, Tacoma Human Rights Commission; Karla Rudy, Committee to Protect Tacoma Human Rights; Will Dean, Gay Men's & Lesbian's Association at the U.W.; Perry Brooks; Gerald Todd; Thomas Page; Bo Tobin, Paul Feldman, Mitchell Harrington, Eileen Hartpence, ACT UP Seattle; Laura Altschul, Privacy Fund; Mary Kay Wright, Seattle Human Rights Commission; Deanna Locke; Lowell Barger, Humanitarian Research Group; Christopher Rivard, Lesbian & Gay Democrats of Greater Seattle; Philip Bereano, American Civil Liberties Union; Sue Docekal, Radical Women & Freedom Socialist Party; Kirk Robinson, Gay Republicans; Janice Van Cleve; Estelle Bunker; Smash Nash; Rebecca Sandle; Cheri Charboneau, Ingersoll Center; Jim Bergstrom; Daniel Holt; Carl McGrath, Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays; and Patricia Naumann, Seattle Commission on Lesbians & Gays.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Shirley Brundage; Phillip Irvin; Judy Perry; Doug Burman; Dr. John Atkinson; Patricia Henderson; Bill Rodda.

House Committee - Testimony For:    For 13 years, people have been trying to secure basic human rights for gays and lesbians.  The point is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, but whether citizens of this country should be treated unfairly, discriminated against, and wrongfully persecuted.  Justice and equal rights, not special rights, are being asked for in such areas as housing and employment security.  Continued bigotry cannot be tolerated.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      A special class of people with special rights is not necessary. Homosexuals have identical legal rights with every other citizen. They should not be given rights that undermine the rights of others by forcing people to act against their moral standards or against their conscience.  Homosexuals choose their behavior and this opens the door for protection of other chosen behaviors.