Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JULY, 10, 2006 <br />the question if after the person goes through the whole process, if they disagree with the <br />Commission and the investigators, what recourse do they have? Mr. Rouse clarified that <br />he is talking about the respondent, the person who is being charged with discrimination. <br />Mr. Douglas responded by saying that the respondent can asked that a court review the <br />process, not the actual decision making, but the process. <br />Councilmember Rouse then asked, what recourse would the respondent have asking a <br />court of law to review this process, when the court does not even recognize this protected <br />class? <br />Mr. Douglas stated that he was not sure that he understood the question. <br />Councilmember Rouse asked what recourse would the respondent have if they are <br />charged by the Commission, as being in violation of this ordinance, after he goes through <br />the whole ten miles? What court can they go to? <br />Mr. Douglas stated that he know understands the question. He stated that the respondent <br />has the right for a court review and that can be appealed also. <br />Mr. Rouse stated that there is no court that recognizes this particular class. <br />Mr. Douglas asked Councilmember Rouse if he was referring to the class in Bill 29-06? <br />Councilmember Rouse responded yes, what court would recognize this protected class? <br />He stated that he would like to know what court could the respondent go to and tell them <br />that the South Bend Human Rights Commission has charged them with discrimination <br />and the respondent does not believe that they have done anything wrong. <br />Mr. Douglas stated that it was his belief and can check with their attorney, that they have <br />a right to appeal it to a higher court, and the court could act on that. <br />Councilmember Rouse stated that he is asking Mr. Douglas because he has the expertise <br />in trying these cases and feels that Mr. Leone does not. What recourse based on <br />experience, when this class is not recognized by Indiana State Law? <br />Mr. Douglas stated that the respondent would still have recourse with a higher court <br />through an appeal. <br />Councilmember Dieter asked Mr. Douglas if the South Bend Human Rights Commission <br />is asking the Council for this amendment as another tool needed? Was something else <br />needed to help within the parameters of the Commission to help with the problem itself? <br />Mr. Douglas responded that he believes his boss’s the Commissioners came before the <br />Council and asked for this amendment to the ordinance. <br />Councilmember Dieter asked if Mr. Douglas or the Commissioners came before the <br />Council and asked for this amendment. <br />Mr. Douglas believes that the Commissioners wrote a letter to the Council. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that the letter was sent by the <br />Commission on March 10, 2005. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer thanked Mr. Douglas for his presentation and description of the <br />process of filing a charge. She asked if the Council added two additional factors of <br />diversity would this change the process? <br />Mr. Douglas stated that the process would remain the same. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer asked Mr. Douglas if he believed that there is discrimination of <br />GLBT people in this community? <br />8 <br /> <br />