Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Status Discrimination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to add 'health status' to state anti‑discrimination law; business and labor officials warn of administrative burden
Summary
House Bill 13‑91 would add "health status" to North Dakota’s anti‑discrimination protections, sponsor Karen Rohrer told the House Human Services Committee; supporters said the change would protect medical choice and informed consent, while the Department of Labor and Human Rights and business groups warned it could create large administrative burdens and novel legal claims for accommodations.
Representative Karen Rohrer introduced House Bill 13‑91 to amend the North Dakota Century Code to add "health status" as a protected category against discrimination in employment, housing, public services and credit.
Rohrer told the committee the change would protect individuals from adverse treatment based on medical records, medical choices or preferences, including the right to refuse a medical procedure or vaccine. "This bill is vital to ensure that people are not penalized or marginalized for making informed decisions about their health care," Rohrer said in opening testimony.
Supporters framed the bill as protecting informed consent and individual liberty. Jennifer Benson, a former pharmaceutical industry employee and policy advocate, described mandates during the COVID‑19 pandemic that she said coerced medical decisions and argued the bill would preserve medical freedom. Benson submitted prerecorded testimony from outside experts and emphasized choice and the need for statutory protection. Kim Witzak gave personal testimony about an adverse family outcome she attributes to undisclosed drug risks; she said the bill protects people from coercion and lack of transparency.
Business and administrative stakeholders urged caution. Zachary Greenberg, interim commissioner of the North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights, said adding health status would substantially expand the department’s caseload and create novel adjudicatory questions because it could create entitlement to reasonable accommodations for personal medical refusals outside the scope of federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII. "This provision would create a legal entitlement to reasonable accommodations for individuals who do not meet the criteria under the...ADA or Title VII," Greenberg testified, and he urged a "do not pass" recommendation unless resource and legal issues are addressed.
The Greater North Chamber and other business groups also opposed the bill, saying it could increase employer liability and pose conflicts with workplace health and safety requirements. Speakers noted the bill’s exemption for bona fide occupational qualifications and health‑and‑safety language but warned employers would face complex choices about accommodations and personnel decisions.
Committee members asked about interactions with federal requirements such as CMS mandates and whether state law could supersede federal standards; supporters said those issues could be addressed in drafting and offered to provide additional legal context.
Ending: The hearing included broad public testimony both for and against adding health status to anti‑discrimination law. Administrative and business witnesses cautioned the committee about increased claims volume and legal complexity; supporters urged the committee to protect informed consent and individual medical choice. The committee closed the public hearing without a vote.
