03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

enforce it,those doubts were resolved in Yellow Cab v. Williams, 583 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). There, the Indiana Court of Appeals explicitly stated: In this case,the legislature has granted local governments the authority to create local human rights commissions. IC 22-9-I- 12.1(b).. The City of Bloomington has an ordinance designating the Commission authority to award compensatory damages to victims of unlawful discrimination in public accommodations. The enabling Act grants local commissions authority to investigate civil rights complaints, appoint hearing examiners, make findings and recommendations, issue orders requiring remedial action, and "[o]rder payment of actual damages, except that damages to be paid as a result of discriminatory practices relating to employment shall be limited to lost wages, salaries, commissions,or fringe benefits."IC 22-9-1-12.1(c)(8). 583 N.E.2d at 778 (emphasis added). Clearly, South Bend has the right to enact and amend its Human Rights Ordinance, and the.South Bend Human Rights Commission has the power to enforce the Ordinance as amended. 3. The proposed amendment is "logically consistent with the statutory purpose"of the Indiana Civil Rights Act and does not"seek to prohibit that which [the Indiana Civil Rights Act] expressly permits." The Indiana Civil Rights Act states the following about the public policy considerations that led to its enactment, its purpose, and its proper construction: IC 22-9-1-2 Public policy; construction of chapter Sec. 2. (a) It is the public policy of the state to provide all of its citizens equal_opportunity for education,emn[oy_ment, access to public conveniences and accommodations, and acquisition through piqLchase or rental of real p jpAerty, including but not limited to housing, and to eliminate segregation or separation based solely on race,religion, color, sex2, disability, national origin or ancestry, since such segregation is an impediment to a The Indiana Civil Rights Commission and Indiana courts consistently follow Seventh Circuit precedent when handling discrimination claims. See, e.g., Indiana Civil Rights Commission v.Adler, 714 N,E.2d 623, 636 (Ind. 1999). The Seventh Circuit has ruled that discrimination against transgendered persons because of their transgendered status is not discrimination because of sex. Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984). There is no reason to believe that either the Indiana Civil Rights Commission or Indiana courts would find otherwise. 8