Committee hearing on bill to add “health status” to anti-discrimination law draws sharp opposition from hospitals, public health and regulators

The Senate Industry and Business Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1391, which would add “health status” as a protected characteristic across employment, housing, public services and credit transactions in North Dakota law. Sponsor Representative Karen Rohr said the change protects “personal medical autonomy,” citing pandemic-era examples in which people were excluded from employment or services for vaccination or other medical choices. Supporters described the bill as a safeguard for informed consent and individual liberty.

Opponents — including the state Department of Labor and Human Rights, health-system leaders, the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, and business groups — urged the committee not to advance the bill, citing the draft’s broad definition, potential conflicts with public-health authority and workplace safety, and a likely surge of complex discrimination claims that would strain the state agency that handles enforcement.

Nut graf: The hearing split along predictable lines: proponents framed the bill as protecting medical decision‑making and guarding against coercive mandates; health-care and public-health witnesses warned the measure, as written, would impede infection-control practices, complicate employer obligations and create administrative burdens for the Department of Labor and Human Rights.

Representative Karen Rohr, the bill’s House sponsor, described the proposed statutory language as covering health information and the right to refuse a medical procedure, and said the policy grew from concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This bill is for all that couldn't get jobs or lost their jobs,” she said, and added the measure is intended to prevent discrimination based on medical history, treatments or medical choices.

Supporters included Representative Kathy Fralick and Jennifer Benson, who emphasized constitutional liberty, informed consent and the need for consistent statewide protections. Benson cited litigation in other states and said similar statutes have been defended in federal courts.

Neutral or strongly opposed testimony focused on operational and legal risks. Zachary Greenberg, interim commissioner of the Department of Labor and Human Rights, said the proposed definition of “health status” is overly broad and would create legal uncertainty and a likely increase in complaints; he submitted a fiscal request for five additional full‑time employees to manage intake and investigations. Greenberg told the committee his office currently handles a backlog of roughly 400 cases and said adding a new protected class would exacerbate enforcement delays.

Hospitals and clinicians gave concrete examples of how the bill could affect patient safety. Dr. Chris Meeker, chief medical officer at Sanford Bismarck, said health care facilities must know vaccination or titer status for staff who care for immunocompromised patients, and that some communicable diseases (for example, measles or tuberculosis) present risk before symptoms are obvious. “Anyone who enters our healthcare facility… you should not be causing harm to any of your patients,” Meeker said, invoking the medical ethic “first, do no harm.” He and other health-care witnesses said the bill’s limited exemption for licensed health facilities is unlikely to address practical patient-safety issues such as tuberculosis screening, hepatitis B immunity, or measles outbreaks that require targeted exclusion to protect patients.

Public-health witnesses raised similar concerns. Molly Howell of the Department of Health and Human Services said sections that would forbid public accommodations from refusing access based on health status “would not allow public accommodations or services… to prevent the spread of infectious diseases by excluding individuals who are actively sick,” and could conflict with existing statute that permits exclusion during an epidemic. Barbara Friedland, a county public-health director, warned that limiting documentation requirements could undermine school and childcare immunization programs and weaken community protections for infants and immunocompromised people.

Business groups including the Greater North Dakota Chamber, the North Dakota Bankers Association and the North Dakota Hospital Association opposed the bill as drafted, citing employer liability, ambiguity over “reasonable accommodation,” and potential workers’ compensation or insurance effects. Eric Spencer of the chamber and Rick Kleberg of the bankers association both told the committee that employers need clear authority to take steps to protect customers and co‑workers in settings with communicable-disease risks.

Committee members asked about federal preemption and past pandemic actions. Witnesses noted existing federal rules (CMS, OSHA) and funding levers, and several said those federal authorities remain superior where they apply; others said state statutory clarity is needed to avoid legal and operational conflicts. No committee vote was taken.

Ending: The hearing record includes multiple written submissions and requests for fiscal analysis; the committee closed the public hearing with no action and said it would consider testimony and fiscal impacts as it drafts next steps.