The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 10, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1

Assemblyman Robert Price, District 17

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley proceeded with committee introductions for the following Bill Draft Requests (BDRs):

• BDR 10-1290 - makes various changes concerning mobile home parks (A.B. 477).

• BDR 57-1299 - provided whether misrepresentation by insured concerning claim is material as a matter of law (A.B. 475).

• BDR 10-1292 - provides privilege of confidentiality for certain information obtained during audits of insurers to determine compliance with state and federal law (A.B. 476).

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 338.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, District 1, presented A.B. 338, and stated the bill simply replaced language that was changed in the 69^th Legislative Session, which had existed for many years in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS). Prior to the change, if an automobile accident occurred that was not the insured’s fault, the insurance company could not increase the individual’s premium, disallow renewal, or cancel his/her policy because the individual was not at fault. It was a "fairness" issue that needed to be put back in the NRS.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Collins if he had a chance to speak to the Insurance Commissioner’s Office regarding the bill. Mr. Collins had not, but had spoken with individuals in the insurance industry and attorneys.

Mr. Dini asked Mr. Collins if he had examples in which a consumer had been injured. Mr. Collins gave an example of a woman who was hit by a drunk driver while driving. Her insurance was consequently cancelled even though the accident was not her fault.

Robert Crowell, Attorney at Law, representing Farmer’s Insurance Company testified next. He affirmed as a result of A.B. 578 from the 69^th Session the law had been changed. It was an omnibus insurance "overhaul" bill. The change was that if claims did not arise as a result of the fault of the insured, the insurance company could still cancel or fail to renew the insured’s policy. The former law allowed insurance companies not to renew homeowner’s insurance policies if a number of claims were filed, whether or not the homeowner was at fault. He stated Farmer’s Insurance did not do any midterm non-renewal. Currently, insurance companies had the right to cancel, or not renew, an insurance policy if they believed the nature of the risk had changed from the time the policy was purchased. The difference between damage to a car and damage to a home was in the nature of the damage. It was fairly easy to determine the cause of damage to an automobile, but damage to a home was not easy to determine.

Mr. Crowell said insurance companies determined if claims were "at fault" or "not at fault" claims. Over the course of time, insurance companies might not be able to prove whether or not homeowners were at fault for certain occurrences or if damage resulted from poor maintenance by the homeowner. Mr. Crowell wanted insurance companies to retain the ability to not renew a policy if they felt the nature of the risk had changed.

Chairman Buckley wanted clarification of who had sponsored A.B. 578 from the 69^th Session. Mr. Crowell was not certain but believed it was requested from the Insurance Division.

Chairman Buckley asked why it would be fair for her to be canceled from her homeowner’s insurance plan as a result of something that was not her fault, such as having been robbed. She could understand if there were an excessive number of claims but asked if that alone was justification to cancel her homeowner’s insurance policy. Mr. Crowell stated his company would not cancel, or fail to renew, a person’s homeowners insurance in that case. He gave an example in which an individual’s house was robbed three or four times in one year. The insurance company would have to determine if the robberies were a result of living in bad neighborhood, or if the homeowner was being fraudulent.

Mr. Goldwater stated there was a fraud statute to prevent that particular anecdote. Mr. Goldwater wanted clarification if workers compensation "three way" insurance would be considered property and casualty coverage. Mr. Crowell assumed the bill would include worker’s compensation. Mr. Goldwater stated that was important to note, because he did not think it was covered in the language for those policies in the three-way bill in 1995.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a standard number of times a homeowner would have to be robbed, or a time period in which the robberies took place, in order for their insurance to not be renewed or canceled. Mr. Crowell stated after the law was changed in 1997, his organization took into account the length of time an individual was insured with Farmers Insurance, and the frequency of claims they made. It was his understanding that once or twice per year was not a sufficient number of times to not have one’s insurance renewed.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Farmer’s Insurance decided not to renew an individual’s insurance, would that person continue to be covered but be put into a "high risk" category, in which their rates would increase. Mr. Crowell noted that was a possibility because the insurance company was required to give a homeowner notice of why their insurance was not being renewed. That notice could indicate to a different insurer the homeowner was in a high-risk category, and their rates would be more expensive.

Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned she had a friend who was robbed twice and was either dropped or put in a "high risk" category, even though she had never had any other claims. Mr. Crowell noted when individuals took advantage of an insurance company everyone covered by that company would "pay the price." Ms. Giunchigliani noted she did not want to focus only on the issue of fraud but also to make sure people were not penalized through no fault of their own.

C. Joseph Guild, Attorney and Counselor at Law, representing State Farm Insurance, testified next. He noted Mr. Crowell had covered the points in opposition to the bill he thought were relevant, and said he would answer any questions.

Sean Smith, representing National Association of Independent Insurers, stated he agreed with Mr. Crowell’s testimony.

Theresa Bedoy, government relations manager, Allstate Insurance Company, stated her company did not actively look to "non-renew" significant numbers. In the three years prior, Allstate had offered to renew 99 percent of their homeowner customers. Allstate would prefer not to see prohibition against good business practice; however, some individuals were acting fraudulently and that would adversely affect other people’s rates. She wanted to make sure her company had the flexibility to "non-renew" certain clients if they felt it was necessary.

Jack Kim, representing Sierra Insurance Group, testified next. He stated his testimony was directed at Mr. Goldwater’s question. His company represented "single line" worker’s compensation companies. As of July 1, they would be able to sell worker’s compensation insurance. It was classified as a "casualty line insurance" and unlike homeowners and automobile insurance, worker’s compensation was a no-fault insurance. Additionally their rates were determined by another organization. As written, A.B. 338 encompassed a no-fault line of insurance, and Mr. Kim wanted workers compensation to be excluded from that provision.

James L. Wadhams, representing Nevada Independent Insurance Agents and American Insurance Association, stated when the original version of the law was put into effect in the late 1980’s it was focused on automobile insurance. The notion was if an individual was involved in a car accident that was not determined to be his/her fault, that insurance should not be canceled. The reason it was changed was the difference between liability insurance and property insurance. If an individual bought fire insurance for their commercial property, he/she had insurance for life at a fixed price, irrespective of whatever circumstances might apply, because the language read, in section 1, line 2, "An insurer shall not cancel, refuse to renew, or increase the premium." Regarding property insurance, Mr. Wadhams did not think it made sense to lock premiums in perpetuity at a fixed price. He did not think that was the intent of the sponsor of the original bill, because it was focused on auto insurance.

Mr. Collins referred to Exhibit C which was the language in NRS 687B.385 prior to the changes made in 1997. That language did fix the rate of insurance as the first time it was purchased by an individual. It did not restrict a "class increase" in insurance. For example, when an insurance company asked the insurance commissioner for an increase in rates across the board. Exhibit C indicated an individual would not have a change in rates if they were not at fault.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted clarification that A.B. 578 from the 69^th Session, changed that language, and asked if that change came from the insurance division. Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Hughey for the background information on that bill to further clarification.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if A.B. 338 referred to motorboats. Mr. Collins did not know.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 338 and opened the hearing on A.B. 209.

Assemblyman Robert Price, District 17, was the sponsor of A.B. 209, and stepped forward to present testimony. Mr. Price noted the bill was fairly complicated and more extensive than he had anticipated in the original Bill Draft Request (BDR) and requested Chairman Buckley appoint a subcommittee to further examine the bill.

Jack Jeffery, an electrician representing the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council (SNB&CTC), spoke next. He stated SNB&CTC was in favor of statewide licensing of electricians for public health and safety reasons; however, A.B. 209 was more extensive than he thought it needed to be. He speculated there would be much less interest in A.B. 209, if it was "re-worked to make more sense."

Danny Thompson, representing Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), spoke next. He asked the committee to put A.B. 209 into a subcommittee so it could be clarified.

Assemblyman Dini asked if there was an electrical apprentice program that trained individuals. He noted the electrical union required individuals to follow certain procedures to become a journeyman, and asked if there was a problem with that. Mr. Price verified there was an apprenticeship program that worked very well, which included 4 years of extensive schooling and on-the-job training. However the problem was with the individuals who did not go through the apprenticeship program, and the public was not aware of what their qualifications were.

Chairman Buckley noted she would "hold" A.B. 209 and speak with Mr. Price about working out changes or forming a subcommittee.

Assemblyman Tom Collins spoke next. He noted he had introduced similar legislation in the 1993 session. In Clark County, building code ordinances required either a "dues receipt" from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), or a card issued by the National Assessment Institute, based in Salt Lake City, Utah. A.B. 209 did not solely address the issue of safe electrical work, because those cards were required of mechanical workers and plumbers in Clark County. He speculated if Clark County had previously enforced the law, perhaps the number of housing defects would be less, and perhaps there would have been fewer worker’s compensation claims to be paid. He opined electricians needed to be trained, but the electrical union was not the exclusive trainer. The Associated Building Contractors had been developing an apprenticeship program in electrical work. He urged the committee to find a way to pass licensing for electrical workers that was not ignored by county building inspectors.

Robert Barengo, Attorney and Counsel at Law, representing the Nevada State Board of Contractors, spoke next, and agreed with Mr. Collins’ testimony. It appeared to "blur" the licensing of a professional electrician, and the licensing of contractors. Page 5, line 28, read "The board, or any member thereof, may issue a subpoena." He did not know of any board that allowed any member to do so. He stated he would be happy to work with the subcommittee.

Robert Ostrovsky, representing Nevada Resort Association, stated the Operating Engineers Union had represented most of the hotels. Electricians and plumbers made up that union, but all operating engineers who worked in his hotels had some electrical experience and may perform some electrical functions. A licensed electrician was used when dealing with high voltage. But they needed to be very careful about what they allowed other maintenance workers to do. The way A.B. 209 was currently drafted, he did not believe a homeowner could change a light switch without a license.

Merritt Yochum, representing the Independent American Party stated he opposed A.B. 209. He had spent his entire life in the electrical industry, and he felt it was an imposition on his right to make a living at his chosen profession, without getting the permission of a bureaucrat.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 209, and opened the hearing on A.B. 311. She noted since there were a large number of people who wanted to testify on A.B. 311, she would divide the remaining time between pro and con testimony.

Assemblyman David Parks, District 41, presented A.B. 311. He read written testimony on A.B. 311, which he referred to as "ENDA," Employment Non-Discrimination Act (Exhibit D). A.B. 311 prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. A.B. 311 would help ensure that the capability to obtain and maintain employment would depend only on an individual’s ability and willingness to work. In the past, Nevada had responded when it found its citizens were being denied employment for reasons that were arbitrary and unfair, such as discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, disability, and national origin. A.B. 311 provided protection to ensure workplace equality for everyone by protecting all persons from discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

Mr. Parks noted in Nevada the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), Reno Police Department (RPD), and both campuses of the University of Nevada had sexual orientation listed in their policies regarding employment non-discrimination.

Mr. Parks stated "ENDA" only applied to discrimination in employment. It did not require fringe benefits be provided to any worker’s partner. It would not mandate the use of quotas or preferential treatment, and did not permit "disparate impact" claims. He also noted ENDA did not apply to religious organizations except to the extent of when they engaged in commercial businesses. He pointed out the Supreme Court observed in Evans v. Romer, that anti-discrimination laws were not "special rights."

Mr. Parks said the threat of discrimination was a very real presence in most workplaces. Most people who were homosexual attempted to protect themselves against discrimination by hiding their sexual orientation, which had a "terrible psychological toll" on the individual. Employment discrimination also took a toll at the most basic level, that of income.

He noted by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, Nevadans supported legislation that prohibited employers from discriminating against workers solely on the basis of sexual orientation. Exhibit D also included a list of states that had enacted ENDA legislation and a statement from the Attorney General’s Office relative to A.B. 311.

Mr. Parks shared a personal experience from 1984 in which he had been discriminated against, because he was thought to be a homosexual dying from AIDS. He noted he had encountered more recent discrimination when he inquired about a job for which he was fully qualified and was told not to bother applying simply because he was gay.

A.B. 311 would help ensure that every person could enter and succeed in the workplace with no regard to sexual orientation. He pointed out that just a few decades prior, many Americans accepted employment discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, disability, and national origin. That was now looked back on with shame and embarrassment.

Mr. Parks reiterated A.B. 311 did nothing more than prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Parks if he knew of any cases where heterosexuals had been discriminated against in the workplace based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Parks was aware of a number of cases in which that had happened. He gave the example of a store in San Francisco in which the manager decided to re-staff, employing only gay individuals and fired the heterosexual employees. That case had been filed as a federal court case. Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out a statute such as A.B. 311 could be beneficial in such a case, because it was based on sexual orientation. Mr. Parks agreed.

Pam Roberts, private citizen testified next in favor of A.B. 311 (Exhibit E). She told the story of how she gained a teaching job in Gabbs, Nevada, and between her first and second year, she was asked to resign because she was gay. She left Gabbs and moved to Reno, where she obtained a position in the Washoe County School District and third grade. She organized and coached the "Jump Rope for Heart" exhibition team. She constantly worried about the threat of losing her job, and after 5 1/2 years, went to law school.

Ms. Roberts became a deputy attorney general assigned to the Medical Fraud Control Unit (MFCU). In addition, she actively worked to protect Nevada senior citizens from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and isolation. She worked to pass several pieces of legislation to better protect Nevada’s seniors.

Ms. Roberts continued, even with all of her accomplishments, because she was an "at will" employee, she could be terminated for any reason except as protected by law, such as race or religion. Under current law in Nevada, she could be fired simply because she was gay. She felt confident she would not be fired under Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa but she did fear losing her job when a new Attorney General was sworn in.

Ms. Roberts stated A.B. 311 did not grant special rights to gay men and lesbians. It would not cause heterosexuals to change into gay men and lesbians. It would not force employers to meet certain hiring quotas or to institute costly special programs. She stated A.B. 311 would provide equal protection for gay men and lesbians in their place of employment and reduce hate and prejudice in all places. A.B. 311 was about fairness and justice, equal rights and protection, for all Nevadans. She urged the committee to pass the bill.

Mr. Parks noted he had discussions with several other groups regarding A.B. 311, and there were two sections and some other groups of wording that he wanted to further study and possibly delete. On page 4, lines 22 and 25, there was added language he did not think was necessary, "of that person or any other person with whom he associates." Throughout the bill there was other language, which included the words "without limitation," page 4, line 40, was an example. He did not think including that language would serve the legislation. Finally, on page 5, lines 40 and 41, and page 6, lines 1 through 6, the new language, was not part of what was requested when the bill was drafted, and that was to be left out as well.

Chairman Buckley reiterated she would divide the time between pro and con testimony on the bill.

Sergeant Keith Carter, form the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), and the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, testified next in favor of A.B. 311. He referred to Exhibit D, page 11, and noted his employer did not oppose A.B. 311, and pointed out LVMPD’s department policy already disallowed discrimination, including sexual orientation.

Assemblyman Nolan asked Sergeant Carter if it would be grounds for discipline or even dismissal if a heterosexual discussed his/her sexual orientation with a person of the opposite sex. Sergeant Carter responded in his experience as a supervisor, that would fall under sexual harassment and would not be allowed in the work place. Mr. Nolan asked if the department’s policy assumed it was sexual harassment if a homosexual person discussed his/her sexual orientation with anyone on the job. Sergeant Carter stated any type of sexual harassment, from a heterosexual or a homosexual, was against LVMPD’s department policy, as well as federal law. Mr. Nolan asked Sergeant Carter if he thought there was any place where the discussion of sexual orientation could occur within the workplace. Sergeant Carter stated the intent of LVMPD’s policy was that "work occurred at work," and although there was no doubt those types of discussions occurred, they were on an individual basis, and if it turned to a harassment situation, very strict disciplinary action would occur.

Danny Thompson, representing Nevada AFL-CIO, noted many of Nevada’s Unions had negotiated sexual orientation into their specific contracts, but his organization believed all people were equal in employment and should not be discriminated against for any reason. Even in certain contracts that did not specifically note "sexual orientation," his organization still took on that fight if someone was discriminated against on that basis. Some of AFL-CIO’s more progressive organizations had bargained healthcare coverage for "lifetime partners" into agreement. His organization felt very strongly there should not be discrimination on any basis, and he thought A.B. 311 was a "right step forward" in eliminating hate and misguided feelings individuals had toward others.

Alison Reardon, Employee Representative for the State of Nevada Employee’s Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (SNEA/AFSCME), testified. SNEA/AFSCME had supported legislation similar to A.B. 311, and attempted to negotiate that type of language into its collective bargaining agreements. She pointed out State of Nevada employees were barred from collective bargaining, so they strongly supported A.B. 311, because state workers had to be protected through individual pieces of legislation. Her organization opposed any form of discrimination; however, because sexual orientation was not currently included in the law, employees might be discriminated against if they were homosexual. Neither heterosexual nor homosexual discussions on sexual matters should occur in the workplace. A.B. 311 would prevent an employer from making judgments based on a person’s sexual orientation. A person who violated employer policy should be disciplined, but they should not be disciplined solely because of their lifestyle. She commended Mr. Parks for bringing A.B. 311 forward.

Chairman Buckley noted one half hour was devoted to the proponents of A.B. 311, and she would allow equal time for the opponents to give testimony. She reminded the witnesses, in lieu of time not to be repetitive in their testimony.

Janine Hansen, State President of the Nevada Eagle Forum, gave testimony in opposition to A.B. 311. She stated she had been the subject of harassment and hate mail form individuals who opposed her view. She referenced the definition of sexual orientation on page 4, lines 3 and 4 of A.B. 311. She had concerns that definition may expand. A.B. 311 dealt with sexual practices instead of issues of sexual orientation. She did not think anyone should ask others in the work place about sexual practices in which they were participating; nor did there need to be special rights to defend special sexual practices. She stated A.B. 311 was inappropriate. One concern with the expansion of the definition of sexual orientation came from the "World Congress on Families." They had published Exhibit F, "A Call From the Families of the World" to convene the World Congress of Families for "rallying organizations and individuals to protect and fortify the natural family; developing guidelines for the formation and implementation of family-centered policies and laws." Ms. Hansen stated the publication was a result of the promotion and expansion of homosexual influence. The document was being circulated worldwide, particularly in Christian communities and many Muslim nations.

Ms. Hansen stated when she and her brother were promoting a particular political document, several years before, a group of homosexuals picketed in front of her brother’s law office. The law office told her brother if he did not "stop his participation in political activities," he would be released from his position there. Ms. Hansen stated as a result of the reverse discrimination by people with whom the law office was doing business her brother chose to leave his position.

Ms. Hansen continued and quoted from portions of Exhibit F. A.B. 311 posed a serious threat to employers’ and employees’ freedoms of religion, speech, and association. She was concerned with the specific definition on page 3, line 32, which excluded "any private membership club from taxation from this particular law" and cited section 501c from the Internal Revenue Code. She provided a list of some of those organizations, Exhibit F, page 3. It was her understanding that private membership clubs did not include many of the organizations which were listed, including labor unions, such groups as Eagle Forum, and the Christian Coalition. Her organization opposed the entire bill, but if the committee was going to pass it, they wanted specific exemptions for certain organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and the Eagle Forum. She mentioned political parties and political candidates did not fall under section 501c. A political party would not be exempt from A.B. 311. A state candidate may hire over 15 individuals, and if someone had the intent to harm that candidate, they might try to get hired by a candidate and then claim they were discriminated against. That would be reverse discrimination. Her organization was concerned about increased costs for litigation for employers who may be accused of discriminating. She told a story of a couple in Seattle who downsized their business and laid off employees who happened to be homosexual, those former employees then brought a discrimination charge against the owner even though he and his wife were the only people left working.

She noted homosexuality was different than race and other issues already covered in the bill, because it dealt with sexual practices of individuals. Her organization did not feel there was a need for special rights for sexual practices. She stated A.B. 311 was part of the "total homosexual agenda."

Zachary Triggs, private citizen, spoke next in opposition to A.B. 311. He stated he represented 10 of the boys in his Boy Scout troop, who he had raised in the Boy Scouts. Mr. Triggs was an "at risk" boy, and was saved by the Boy Scouts. He noted the Boy Scouts helped boys regardless of race, creed or color, and taught them the important things required to be an American and an upstanding citizen. The Boy Scouts organization was so large that it was no longer based on a volunteer system, more than 15 individuals were paid employees in Mr. Triggs’ district. That created several problems. If they were forced to strike their policy against not admitting homosexuals, they must allow them at summer camps and other events regulated by paid personal. It would be a dishonor to a 65-year tradition to allow homosexuals to be among them 24 hours per day. Neither he nor any of the boys in his troop, who ranged from ages 11 to 18, would ever accept homosexuality as an honorable or American behavior. He urged the committee not to pass A.B. 311, or at least allow the Boys Scouts the ability to deny employment to homosexuals. He read a letter from Bradford Turley, who was a Life Scout (Exhibit G). The letter was in opposition to A.B. 311. Mr. Triggs urged the committee to give the Boy Scouts a way out, so they might retain their values as Americans and upstanding community members.

Sheila Ward, representing Nevada Christian Coalition spoke next in opposition to A.B. 311 (Exhibit H). Her organization had three specific concerns with the bill.

1. A.B. 311 gave special protection to a particular moral behavior and left out the conservative/religious moral standards which were provided for the best health and welfare of citizens of Nevada and the U.S. She noted promiscuity was promoted by the liberal "free sex" philosophy. The number of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) had increased from approximately 3 in the 1960’s to 42 in the 1990’s.

2. There were probable conflicts under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She stated an employee had some right to share religious convictions with co-workers if he/she believed that to be his/her religious duty. If an employer fired or reprimanded an employee for speaking about religion on the job, the employer would violate Title VII. Ms. Ward stated the U.S. Supreme Court already viewed religious freedom of exercise and expression as a fundamental right, a right that could not be changed under the Constitution, and therefore was a stronger right. She believed Nevada law should "make more clear the protections of its citizens who hold religious, moral convictions."

3. Ms. Ward’s third concern was regarding the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which defined and regulated employee benefit plans. Section 11 of A.B. 311 amended certain NRS chapters, which would result in requiring a private employer to provide health and welfare benefits to the partners of homosexual employees, just as the employer provided benefits to a married couple. She urged the committee not to pass A.B. 311.

Carolyn Nelson, representing the Washoe County Independent American Party (I.A.P.), testified next in opposition to A.B. 311. She noted the average unemployment rate in Nevada in 1998 was 4.3 percent. Even if 2 percent of the population was of a different gender orientation than heterosexual, only .083 percent of the unemployed persons would be homosexual or bisexual. If certain free enterprise organizations wanted to implement sexual orientation discrimination into their policies was one matter, but to mandate it for all was wrong. She believed laws should reflect community standards, and she believed most people in the communities would be opposed to A.B. 311.

Chairman Buckley noted for the record, the remaining individuals who were opposed to A.B. 311, on the sign-in sheet, (Exhibit B).

Daniel Hansen, State Chairman of the Independent American Party, testified next in opposition to A.B. 311 (Exhibit I). He began by asking by what authority the legislature presumed to have to dictate to employers who they could or could nor hire or fire. He stated A.B. 311 was "fascist" and "reverse slavery." If an individual was forced to work for someone against his or her will, that individual was a slave. As an employer in Nevada, his business was under strict government regulations, and he did not want who he hired and fired to be governed. He stated there needed to be less government, taxes, regulations and laws, and more individual responsibility and self-government. "Laws against nature" were not needed. He urged the committee not to pass A.B. 311.

Francis Gillings, County Chairman for I.A.P. gave testimony in opposition to A.B. 311, (Exhibit J). He was concerned he was going to be forced to hire individuals who may not be trustworthy, or perhaps infected with the AIDS virus, which would endanger he and his family. Mr. Gillings felt A.B. 311 eliminated his rights as an individual American because while some individuals were given special rights, his were being taken away.

Patricia Glenn, private citizen, testified last in opposition to A.B. 311 (Exhibit K). She was opposed to the revision of the employment and discrimination statutes of Nevada to include sexual orientation as a privileged status. Civil rights laws were written to protect those who were disadvantaged in the workplace. She stated homosexuals "outpaced" most Americans in education and financial earnings, as well as political influence. The traditional family was being discriminated against. A.B. 311 would award special rights in the workplace to homosexuals, based on their lifestyles and behavior. Included in Exhibit K were examples of actual court cases and decisions which had forced innocent employers out of business because of unfounded accusations of sexual orientation discrimination.

Samuel P. McMullen, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, testified in favor of A.B. 311. He stated Mr. Parks had proposed amendments to A.B. 311 that resolved the concerns of his organization and presented a clear policy choice to the legislature. He commended Mr. Parks for working with his organization to amend the language and stated they no longer had objections to the bill.

Chairman Buckley closed the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Meagen Colard,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: