I agree that would it would be a big blow to elimate Minneapolis' Civil Rights Department.  Although there are similar agencies on the state (Department of Human Rights) and federal level (EEOC), only Minneapolis' Civil Rights Department is empowered to enforce Minneapolis' local civil rights ordinance.  All three agencies are already unable to conduct adequate investigations because they have too low budgets and too few staff to handle large caseloads by many people complaining of discrimination.  The more cuts of any of the agencies, the more unlikely that victims of discrimination can have their cases addressed.  Minneapolis has particular need for a civil rights department because it has the most diverse population in the state, and a proportionally larger number of businesses and people are employed within city limits. 
 
One particular advantage of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department over the state and federal agencies is that is the only agency with a procedure to automatically follow through on discrimination cases with merit.  The procedure in all the agencies is to conduct an investigation, and then make an initial determination of whether there is "probable cause" or "no probable cause" to support the charge of discrimination.  (Unfortunately, the state and federal agencies also have a loophole where they dismiss the charge on the grounds that it does not warrant further resources, without conducting a full investigation).  After making a finding of probable cause, the state and federal agencies have discretion to decide whether to pursue the case further, either through an agency hearing or in court.  Due to their limited resources, the state Human Rights Department and federal EEOC usually do not pursue most cases where they find probable cause.  This leaves the victim of discrimination in the position of having to hire a lawyer to pursue his or her case in order to actually get relief.  Many will not be able to find or afford a lawyer, even if their case was determined to have merit.  Those who earn low or moderate incomes, and may well be unemployed after being discriminatorily terminated from employment, cannot begin to pay a lawyer's hourly fee.  A lawyer is unlikely to take a case on a contingency fee (getting paid out of a judgment or settlement in the client's favor), unless there were large financial damages or really egregious harassment.  This leaves out the majority of victims of discrimination.  The Minneapolis Civil Rights Deparment's procedure, however, automatically leads to the case being heard by a panel of three commissioners, if there is probable cause to support a charge.  This enables the victims of discrimination without lawyers to get a hearing.
 
The elimination of the Civil Rights Department would really signal the end of Minneapolis' tradition of being in the forefront of civil rights advances.
 
Jordan Kushner
downtown civil rights lawyer
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:55 AM
Subject: [Mpls] Minneapolis Human Rights

I have heard it said that Minneapolis should reduce or eliminate
its city human rights enforcement efforts because it duplicates
existing state human rights work.  Perhaps someone on the list
can refresh my memory, as right now I cannot remember who
said it, but I think it was either someone on the City Council or
another prominent Minneapolis voice. 
 
With LGA cuts facing the city, of course there will be budget
cuts, but I really hope human rights enforcement doesn't go
away.  My recollection is that the city's human rights laws are
stronger than state law, and now we are facing the possibility
that the Republicans want to water down state law.  Even if
those efforts are unsuccessful (I hope), there is still a danger
that the new administration will water down state enforcement
efforts administratively.  Therefore, it is risky to get rid of the
Minneapolis efforts.
 
Don Jorovsky
New Brighton


Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Reply via email to