May 08, 2013 10:00 AM UTC

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

•  
• 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.