SB 213 has passed the second chamber without amendment and is therefore eligible for enrollment and signature by the governor. It basically removes the authority of local government to regulate the employee – employer relationship unless state or federal law specifically grants that authority:
“A unit may not . . . require an employer to provide to an employee . . . (1) a benefit; (2) a term of employment; (3) a working condition; or (4) an attendance or leave policy;
that exceeds the requirements of federal or state law, rules, or regulations.”
Per a story by Mary Beth Schneider, this potentially guts some local human rights ordinances.
That would turn on whether the human rights ordinances were offering a mechanism of enforcing employment rights found in federal or state law or creating new ones. The former would probably remain valid and the latter would be void.
The authors say that it wasn’t their intent to invalidate human rights ordinances. They simply wanted the local authorities to be unable to raises wages or make sure employees receive certain other benefits. (Not sure the stated motivation is a ton better than the unintended consequence; but opinions differ, I suppose.)
Local control is good, except when it helps people? It that the General Assembly’s position?
Doug – the local laws are thus. Note: sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status are outside the state and federal codes and therefore fall within this law’s purview:
Lafayette – covers sexual orientation in the Human Relations Ordinance for employment, housing and public accommodations. You can’t get back wages, etc, but you can get a finding of discrimination and shame the local business, etc. There is also a mediation process.
West Lafayette – covers SO/ gender identity and veteran status but in a resolution of the council – which puts it outside the very punitive measures the WLHRC can impose for a finding of discrimination on cases like race and national origin.
Tippecanoe County (which you know as an employee) has an HRC that covers sexual orientation in much the same way as Lafayette, but with many more exemptions carved out for religious objections.
I believe that the Indy mayor’s statement implies ALL of these protections would be invalidated, as outside or above and beyond the state and federal standards.
Hoosier CITES covering SO & GI: Indy, Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, South Bend, New Albany, West Lafayette.
Cities covering SO: Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Michigan City, and Monroe County
Cities leaning or with some supports: Columbus, Richmond, Terre Haute, Gary region..
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2013/03/ind_govt_more_o_386.html
Another view.