Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Mulroy Confident Anti-Discrimination Resolution Will Hold Up in Court
Posted by Jackson Baker on Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Both during and after Monday's meeting of the Shelby County Commission, questions were raised about the legal impact of the anti-discrimination resolution passed, 9-4, by the commission. Commissioner Steve Mulroy, who authored an anti-discrimination ordinance of his own before yielding to a substitute resolution from colleague Sidney Chism, maintains stoutly that the resolution provides substantial protection for gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons who may choose to litigate on the basis of it.
Following is a statement from Mulroy on the issue, dispatched to a reporter at another publication who had raised questions and forwarded also to the Flyer.
I don't think it's correct to say that because the item is a Resolution and not an Ordinance that "it can't be used in court."If an employee claiming discrimination (wrongful termination, for example) takes her case to the Civil Service Appeals Board and fails to get relief, she can file a Chancery Court suit. In that suit, she would rely on the Resolution and claim that the County violated its own stated, binding policy, and that because of that the Court should order reinstatement.
As a technical matter, she may be relying on the general obligation in Chancery Court for the county not to act "arbitrary or capricious," with the Resolution serving as evidence of that, rather than filing directly to enforce an Ordinance in General Sessions Court. But the distinction seems somewhat technical to me—in either case, the employee is relying on the Ordinance/Resolution in court, and it gives the employee the ability to get a court to issue an injunction against the County.
This was my understanding when I agreed to the substitute language. I just double-checked this with County Atty Brian Kuhn today to make sure I had it right before I presumed to quibble with you.
I hope that clears things up more than muddies things.
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
Discrimination is discrimination, whether it is based on race, color, creed, sexual preference, religion, or any other reason. Why are we deciding to now include specific groups of people who cannot be discriminated against? What's next, you can't terminate employees based on their clothing style, hair color, music preference, bubble gum choice? Where does it end? Discrimination is wrong as a whole. It should extend to all people, not a selected group. All these resolutions and ordinances of this type create is a chance for some lazy member of this group to sit on their rump and collect a paycheck with the comfort of knowing that if their employer terminates them for a cause that is understandable, they can sue that employer for discrimination, and quite possibly win these frivolous lawsuits due to the ignorance of some council members. On another note, if I am an employer knowing if I hire a homosexual acting person, that no matter how bad their job performance is, I cannot terminate this employee without possible legal ramifications, then I will simply take their application, smile, and say "We will be in touch with you." They shouldn't be expecting a phone call. The way I see it the homosexuals are trying to make tougher discrimination laws to protect themselves from wrongful termination. What they are going to accomplish is never getting a homosexual hired in the first place.
like
dislike
Non-discriminatory laws infer that the government can intervene into a private corporation or business and force them into hiring all classes of people. Trespassing laws keep undesirables off one's property that they choose not to associate with. By extension, a company or corporation has the same rights as individuals holding title to the company. As a private entity, it has the right to choose with whom it will associate and when. The 1st and 14th amendment intends that the property owner has rights of association, assembly, and speech in regards to his property, possessions, business, etc. This negates the hiring of certain classes of individuals if so desired. The government does not own a person or the extension; a company or corporation. Since 1964, the Civil Rights Act has allowed a 'slippery-slope' in this area to include all forms of behavior to be accepted by law. The emphasis on 'group rights' strips away individual rights. By implication, the government is stealing jurisdiction from individuals and their extensions of business. By altering the original intent of the Civil Rights Act to include behavior along with race, the door is open for forced acceptance of all types of behavior. Where does one draw the line if we use arbitrary ethics as our foundation for truth?
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
