HB 1169-FN - AS INTRODUCED
2024 SESSION
24-2117
09/08
HOUSE BILL 1169-FN
SPONSORS: Rep. Wheeler, Hills. 33; Rep. Harriott-Gathright, Hills. 10; Rep. DiLorenzo, Rock. 10; Rep. D. Ford, Hills. 40; Rep. M. Perez, Hills. 43; Rep. Meuse, Rock. 37
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS
This bill creates a private cause of action for discrimination based on hairstyles relative to a person's ethnicity. This bill also exempts such causes of action from the jurisdiction of the human rights commission.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
24-2117
09/08
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Four
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Protective Hairstyles; Discrimination in Education. Amend RSA 193:38 to read a follows:
193:38 Discrimination in Public Schools. No person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in public schools because of their age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, marital status, familial status, disability, religion, or national origin, all as defined in RSA 354-A. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice prohibited under this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire commission for human rights, as provided in RSA 354-A:27-28. In this section, “race” means immutable traits associated with race, including hair texture and protective hairstyles and “protective hairstyles” means hairstyles or hair type, including braids, locs, tight coils or curls, cornrows, Bantu knots, Afros, twists, and headwraps.
2 New Section; Discrimination Based on Protective Hairstyle. Amend RSA 275 by inserting after section 37-d the following new section:
275:37-e Discrimination Based on Protective Hairstyle. No person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment because he or she wears a protective hairstyle. In this section, “protective hairstyles” means hairstyles or hair type, including braids, locs, tight coils or curls, corn rows, Banto knots, Afros, twists, and head wraps. A person subjected to discrimination based on wearing a protective hairstyle shall have a private cause of action and shall be exempt from the jurisdiction of the human rights commission and the provisions of RSA 354-A. This section shall not apply to those employed by the department of corrections.
3 New Section; Protective Hairstyles Exempted. Amend RSA 354-A by inserting after section 18 the following new section:
354-A:18-a Exemption for Protective Hairstyles. Private causes of action under RSA 275:37-d shall be exempt from the jurisdiction of the human rights commission.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
24-2117
10/25/23
HB 1169-FN- FISCAL NOTE
AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL IMPACT: [ X ] State [ ] County [ ] Local [ ] None
|
| |||||
Estimated State Impact - Increase / (Decrease) | ||||||
| FY 2024 | FY 2025 | FY 2026 | FY 2027 | ||
Revenue | $0 | Indeterminable Increase | Indeterminable Increase | Indeterminable Increase | ||
Revenue Fund(s) | Department of labor restricted fund (RSA 273:1-b)
| |||||
Expenditures | $0 | Indeterminable Increase | Indeterminable Increase | Indeterminable Increase | ||
Funding Source(s) | General Fund
| |||||
Appropriations | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
Funding Source(s) | None
| |||||
• Does this bill provide sufficient funding to cover estimated expenditures? [X] No • Does this bill authorize new positions to implement this bill? [X] No | ||||||
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Labor indicates this bill adds a category of prohibited conduct that can be enforced by the Department of Labor through issuance of warning, and in subsequent instances of violation, civil penalty in accordance with RSA 273-11:a, and confers to the employee the ability to pursue individual remedy and associated enforcement of rights through litigation via the court system. The Department states it is unlikely that the bill would have a significant impact on revenues or expenditures at the state, county, or local level. It is possible some employers may violate this law resulting in civil penalties at the state level or civil litigation through the private right of action. The Department notes any increase in revenue at the state level or expenditures due to litigation would be difficult to credibly determine or otherwise quantify.
The Judicial Branch states it is not possible to estimate how this change in law would impact the number of filings or the complexity of filings. The Branch does have average cost estimates for civil cases in the Superior Court:
Average Cost | FY 2024 | FY 2025 |
Superior Court Complex Civil Case | $1,321 | $1,347 |
Superior Court Routine Civil Case | $494 | $504 |
The New Hampshire Human Rights Commission indicates this bill, seeks to change RSA 198:38 to include hair, hair styles, hair texture, protective hairstyles, hair type to include braids, locs, tight coils or curls, cornrows, Bantu knots, Afros, twists, and headwraps as a protected class based on race for K-12 public school, public academy, and chartered schools for which an aggrieved party or the attorney general may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire commission for human rights, as provided in RSA 354-A:27-28. The bill also would preclude the Commission from receiving a charge of discrimination in employment which would be brought under RSA 275:37-e.
The Commission anticipates this change may cause confusion and generate added requests for statutory advice, clarity, and possible training from the Commission. However, the magnitude of the additional responsibilities imposed upon existing agency staff is indeterminable. The Commission states it is unknown what amount of existing staff time would be needed to address the changes, or if the Commission would be responsible for providing the statutory advice, clarity, and possible training. The Commission indicates it is unclear if additional staff would be needed in the future as a result of the bill. The Commission states it is unclear what obligation the Commission would have to pursue charges of discrimination in employment regarding hairstyles. Currently, charges of discrimination based in the proposed area, and others not explicitly stated, can be received and pursued by the Commission for all protected classes.
AGENCIES CONTACTED:
Department of Labor, New Hampshire Human Rights Commission and Judicial Branch