Today In BS: Fictionalizing The "Sue Your Boss" Bill

8 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

On Monday, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act, House Bill 1136. This bill's purpose is well-explained in its summary:

While federal employment antidiscrimination laws allow such damages in cases where intentional discrimination is found, and allows an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs, only employers who employ 15 or more employees are subject to federal law. [Pols emphasis]

As we've reported, this bill gives employees at small businesses the same relief from proven discrimination that businesses with more than 15 employees already have under federal law. The fierce pushback against this bill from Republicans has never made much sense to us, since the simple facts of what the bill does make it awfully to tough defensibly oppose. Opposition to the idea that employees of a small business should have the same rights as a business with more than 15 employees tends to reveal an underlying view that all discrimination lawsuits are "frivolous"–and that's where the public deserts opponents.

Well folks, KRDO-TV Colorado Springs has found another way to deal with this bill: BS people about it.

On Monday, House Bill 13-1136 became the Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013. The law, nicknamed the "sue your boss" law, will expand an employee's ability to sue an employer for job discrimination.

Formerly, employees could only collect damages such as back pay or being rehired if they were fired. But under the new law, employees also may sue for punitive damages such as emotional pain or inconvenience…

KRDO's report never mentions the fact that these protections already exist in federal law for businesses larger than 15 employees. They do say at the end of their story that the law "only applies" to businesses smaller than 15 employees–which, absent context, would indeed make viewers think this really is some kind of "singling out" of small business. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only thing useful in this absurdly misleading story is this quote from a restaurant owner opposed to the bill:

"It's bad legislation," said restaurant owner Pete LeBarre. "It's a restraint in the growth of a small business owner. Most discrimination claims aren't valid anyway…" [Pols emphasis]

There you have it. The only rationalization, BS notwithstanding, for opposing this bill that makes any sense.

8 thoughts on “Today In BS: Fictionalizing The “Sue Your Boss” Bill”

Phoenix Rising says:

May 8, 2013 at 10:10 am

I'm not sure the new law is terribly well considered myself, but for completely different reasons I am sure than the GOP is whining about.

It's hard to prove discrimination in a constricted environment such as a small business. What might become obvious in a large business is much harder to pinpoint when there aren't that many employees. I can think of a few situations in jobs I've worked at previously where discrimination on this scale happened, but none where, absent the testimony of another employee in a he-said/he-said scenario, there would have been enough to even think about going to court.

Small businesses do generally have a harder time coming up with the legal resources to defend these types of claims, which can get expensive quickly. Not having read the bill, I would hope that some level of cheaper non-court mediation preceeds any decision to allow this to trial. Unlike the folks gnashing their teeth about it though, I do think it's a Good Thing to allow employees of all businesses to sue if discrimination can be proven.

Log in to Reply
1. JeffcoBlue says:
  
  May 8, 2013 at 1:38 pm
  
  Sorry, but I really don't see how the size of a business makes a person more or less of a victim of discrimination.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. DavidThi808 says:
    
    May 8, 2013 at 9:36 pm
    
    I think P/Rs point is the law of small numbers. If a company fires 1 person and doesn't promote 1 other – saying why is difficult. If a company fires 10 people and doesn't promote 10 others, and they're all women while all men advance, then you've got a clear trend.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Phoenix Rising says:
      
      May 9, 2013 at 11:35 am
      
      That's pretty much it, yes.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. GalapagoLarry says:
    
    May 8, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    
    Uh…yeah. What's the point? Discrimination is discrimination. Oh, right. We haven't met our loophole quota for the day. Need another loophole law.
    
    Log in to Reply
slumdog says:

May 8, 2013 at 2:58 pm

This has opened a new line of insurance to sell to small businesses: employment practices liability insurance. If you look closely, there is always an insurer around the corner.

Log in to Reply
GalapagoLarry says:

May 8, 2013 at 9:46 pm

One question: Since when to states get to constrain or otherwise amment federal laws?

Log in to Reply
1. Phoenix Rising says:
  
  May 9, 2013 at 11:37 am
  
  They can always expand on them, which is what this bill does – extends claims at the state level for things that match the definition of discrimination at the federal level.
  
  Log in to Reply