HB 686 limits the complainant’s right to remove the case for jury trial to superior court in a case before the human rights commission.
The Senate hearing will be at 3:15 PM, Statehouse Room 103. In the meantime, please email or call the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to express your displeasure with this bill.
You might also email or call all your Senators to ask them to OPPOSE this bill.
Let them know you have the right to due process under state law, and as such the complaint procedure brought before the HRC should not be amended!
Bill Text:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0686.html
It changes the word “party” to the word “complainant”. Why is this so serious?
Previously, both parties had to agree to have a case heard by the Human Rights Commission, instead of a trial by jury. Under this bill, only the plaintiff needs to request a hearing from the commission, and the defendant LOSES his Part I Art. 20 right to trial by jury.
This bill is for people who are accused of violating human rights such as, denying housing or employment on the basis of race, creed, or sexual orientation.
Some see that it could become a Star Chamber for those who claim positive rights over another human being, and unconstitutional as well as immoral.
From the House Journal:
HB 686, relative to complaint procedures in cases before the commission for human rights.
MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Lucy M. Weber for the Majority of Judiciary: Currently, a person alleging discrimination can file an action before the Human Rights Commission. Under certain circumstances, the person alleged to have committed the discrimination has the right to force the injured party into the superior court to pursue their claim. This allows an oppressive landlord or employer to force the person discriminated against into a civil suit, thus imposing both significant delay and added costs. The practical effect can be to foreclose all remedies to the injured party. This bill levels the playing field by allowing the person discriminated against the choice of forum, allowing them to continue their case under the more informal procedures of the Human Rights Commission. Vote 8-5.
Rep. William L. O’Brien for the Minority of Judiciary: To the majority, taking away the right to a jury trial from defendants, but leaving plaintiffs with a right to obtain a jury trial at all stages of the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and later on appeal in the superior court is warranted, because, you see, employers and landlords have too much money to defend cases and they hire clever lawyers who make it hard to win those cases, particularly if the defendants get to defend them in court rather then before the HRC. And employers and landlords should want to stay in the HRC for these cases and not slyly remove them to the superior court because the HRC is so very fair that employers and landlords lose only 60% of the HRC cases, while employees and tenants lose a whopping 25%. To the minority, committing such a constitutional violation for any reason, let alone based on such flimsy and biased reasoning, can never be justified. They believe the House should not be a party to such a miscarriage of justice. For those who need reasoning beyond constitutionality and fundamental fairness to forego anti-employer bias, it should be noted further that defendants in many HRC discrimination cases are small businesses having one or two employees. These businesses can no more afford to hire an attorney than can many (but certainly, not all) employees and are also at a disadvantage before the courts. Further, by structuring the enforcement of discrimination laws in such an unbalanced, pro-complainant manner, our state would be motivating employers and landlords to do what none of us want: not hire or rent to minorities and thereby avoid being subjected to such a system. Finally, in their apparent rush to report out this bill before the business community caught wind of it, the bill was passed by the majority of the committee voting on it (which was not a majority of the committee) even before the sponsor and HRC’s representative provided documents that were requested and promised during its hearing.
The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Ought to Pass.
Reps. William O’Brien and DiFruscia spoke against.
Rep. Levesque spoke in favor and yielded to questions.
Rep. Lucy Weber spoke in favor.
Rep. Dumaine requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded.
It passed with 172 Yeas and 152 Nays