House committee advances bill aligning Kentucky Civil Rights Act with ADA amendments and shifting adjudication to courts

Representative Daniel Elliott introduced House Bill 468 as a statutory update to the Kentucky Civil Rights Act to interpret “qualified individual with a disability” consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. Elliott said the bill removes the commission’s adjudicative authority for employment and public-accommodations claims and directs that those matters be adjudicated in circuit court, preserving the commission’s investigative powers and the option for the commission to initiate litigation on behalf of a complainant.

Joe Bilby, deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives, and commission staff described the practical consequences. Colt Sells, staff counsel for the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, told the committee that while incorporating the 2008 ADA amendments is positive, the bill’s change to require civil filings in many cases could undermine local commissions’ ability to enforce local ordinances, remove subpoena and enforcement powers the commissions rely on, and risk federal work-sharing contracts with agencies such as the EEOC and HUD. Sells cited 2019 data from the commission showing 211 employment charges received that year, with 145 dismissed and 35 settled and very few resulting in full hearings; he said only one or two commission hearings typically occur per year in that silo, which informed the drafters’ view but raised concerns about the practical effect of the change.

Members asked detailed questions about the subpoena-enforcement process and whether respondents could move to quash subpoenas in court; commission witnesses explained the commission could seek a court order to enforce a subpoena and a respondent could then seek to quash that order. Representative Stapleton and others argued for the constitutional right to a jury trial and described discomfort with vesting adjudicative authority in an administrative body; commission witnesses requested further work to preserve local enforcement capacity and staff resources.

After public-comment testimony from local human-rights commissioners and advocates who warned that the bill removes ‘‘teeth’’ from local enforcement and could jeopardize federal contracts and protections for people with disabilities, the committee voted to report HB 468 favorably with 16 yes votes, no no votes and three passes. Members indicated a willingness to consider friendly amendments and to continue discussions with the commission and local stakeholders before floor action.