03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

See Yellow Cab y. Williams, 583 N.E.2d 774(lad. Ct. App. 1991) In this case,the legislature has granted local governments the authority to create local human rights commissions. IC 22-9-1-12.1(b). The City of Bloomington has an ordinance designating the Commission authority to award compensatory damage s to victims of unlawful discrimination in public accommodations. The enabling statute 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), (emphasis added). Yellow Cab v. Williams, 583 N.E.2d 774(Ind. Ct. App. 199 1) The real question is how broad may that ordinance be? Indiana University v. Hartwell, 367 N.E.2d 1090 (Indiana Court of Appeals 1977)is a case regarding a civil rights statute that has since been repealed. Hartwell said that the old statute was unconstitutional because it gave broad and standardless discretion to cities to create ordinances granting local commissions literally limitless powerless to enforce civil rights laws. The Hartwell court did not have a problem with the legislature telling cities they could crate ordinances and commissions to enforce the civil rights laws; rather, the problem was that the legislature had failed to provide any standards regarding creation of the ordinances or any limits on local commissions' powers. The problems raised in Hartwell have since been addressed in the Indiana civil rights statutes. IC 22-9-1-12.1, which authorizes cities to enforce the civil rights laws, lists the specific powers the city can grant to a commission. It also specifically states that local commissions have no control over the state or its agencies. Indiana case law is clear that a municipality can impose additional regulations if: the state has not chosen to retain exclusive control of that area of the law; the additional regulations are within the cities' legislative authority; and,the additional regulations do not conflict with the state regulations: See Yater v Hancock Co. Planninz 614 N.E.2d 568 Undiana Court of AnDeals. 1993): A conflict will be found where an ordinance seeks to prohibit that which a statute expressly permits, but no conflict will be found where an ordinance seeks to supplement the burdens imposed by the statute, provided the additional burdens are logically consistent with the statutory purpose. City oflndianapolis v. Sablica (1976), 264 Ind. 271, 342 N.E.2d 853, 855. 10