03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

provide equal opportunity for all of its citizens and the meaning of Chapter 22 is to be interpreted generally,not restrictively. Note the emphasis added to Section 22-9-1-12.1(b.)above: the City is authorized to establish a local commission to carry out the public policy of Indiana stated in section 2 "without conflict with any of the provisions of this chapter."Id Amending the Human Rights Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity is not in conflict with state statute. Expanding civil rights in no way contradicts or is incompatible with what the statue provides. If anything, the amendment goes beyond the statute, rather than challenging the statute. Nothing in IC 22-9-1 et seq, prohibits the City from giving broader protections through its local Human Rights Ordinances than those specifically included in this section. Broader protections would coexist with the statute, not contradict or subvert it. The amendment would not be deemed inconsistent because of mere lack of uniformity in detail. The State of Indiana has clearly NOT chosen to preempt the area of civil rights law. Simply because the state enacts legislation in an area of the law, does not mean that a local governmental unit is automatically precluded from enacting similar, albeit not identical, legislation in that same area. Indiana Code 22-9-1-12.1 is the state law that enables the City to establish a Human Rights Commission and adopt ordinances to ensure human rights protections. This statute's express pumose is to effectuate the public policy of the State of Indiana to provide equal opportunity to all of its citizens. And in fact, the powers granted by IC 22-9-1-12.1 are quite broad, including the power to issue subpoenas. C. South Bend's police powers arise out of common law. "Police power"is the inherent power of the government(federal, state, local)to impose upon private rights those restrictions that are reasonably related to the promotion and maintenance of the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. [However] local governments may `impose additional, reasonable regulations...and supplement burdens imposed,by non-penal state law, provided the additional burdens are logically consistent with the statutory purpose.'IDNR v Newton County, 802 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2004); see also,Kentuckians Medical Center, LLC v Clark County, 2006 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 3298 (S.D. Ind. 2006)(emphasis added) It is reasonable for the city to rely upon its police powers to justify enforcing an amended Human Rights Ordinance to prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity in keeping with its duty to protect the physical and mental health and well-being of all of its residents. 7