Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb122 Anti Discrimination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves anti‑discrimination bill amid questions over disability‑accommodation language
Summary
House members debated Senate Bill 122, an amendment to Utah’s anti‑discrimination law that sponsors described as clean‑up aligning state language with federal rules; several representatives raised concerns that new wording could allow termination without providing reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
Senate Bill 122, presented on Feb. 19, 2003, was described by its sponsor, Representative Clark, as largely clean‑up language to the Utah Anti‑Discrimination Act and an alignment with federal regulations. Clark said the bill reduces the number of public members on the reviewing committee from five to three and clarifies definitions of discriminatory or unfair employment practices.
During floor questions, several representatives probed whether the revised wording could permit termination of an employee judged "physically, mentally, or emotionally unable to perform the duties required" without first requiring reasonable accommodations. Representative Litvak and Representative Daniels said the language as written appeared to allow a determination of non‑performance without providing accommodations, which they described as troubling and potentially in conflict with federal requirements.
The sponsor responded that the bill’s language aligned with federal regulations and that stakeholders involved in drafting the language supported it. Nevertheless, several members expressed discomfort and in at least one instance recorded an intent to vote against the bill on principle because of their reading of the accommodation language.
The House temporarily circulated (postponed) the bill during discussion to allow additional clarification, then later completed floor action: the clerk reported Senate Bill 122 received 68 yes votes and 0 no votes and passed the House.
The transcript records the principal concern: whether state-level definition and committee discretion could limit reasonable accommodation obligations; the sponsor and backers argued the changes were remedial and aligned with federal language.
