Fact Sheet 5

North Dakota Human Rights Coalition

Working to effect change so that all people in North Dakota enjoy full human rights

Join Us Today!!

Support the NDHRC

Become a Member or Donate Today!

Click PayPal link for direct credit card contribution or PayPal payment options.

(No PayPal account necessary!)

NDHRC Membership Brochure

NDHRC Volunteer Program

Interested in Receiving NDHRC Email Newsletter?

Sign Up Here

Fact Sheet #5

A North Dakota Commission on Human Rights Can Address Complaints of Discrimination

The proposed North Dakota Commission on Human Rights can address complaints of discrimination by hearing appeals of the dismissal of discrimination complaints by the Division of Human Rights in the North Dakota Department of Labor.

A North Dakota Commission on Human Rights could address complaints of discrimination in which errors are made by the Division of Human Rights in the North Dakota Department of Labor, such as the no probable cause finding issued by the Division of Human Rights on October 28, 2002, in which it found the following:

The complainants are “JC”, a black woman and her husband, a black man, “WC”.

The landlord “EA” owns a real estate company in one of the larger communities in North Dakota.

JC has a mental disability for which her doctor prescribed a therapeutic dog.

EA required JC and WC to dispose of the therapeutic dog, although he had received a letter from JC’s doctor outlining JC’s need for the therapeutic dog.

Permitting a therapeutic dog would be a required reasonable accommodation for a disabled tenant under the Americans with Disability Act and North Dakota Housing Discrimination Act.

EA told another tenant that he couldn’t keep accommodating “these people just because they have disabilities or are on welfare”.

JC and WC’s rent was increased when other tenants’ rent was not increased.

EA’s former maintenance worker reported that EA called blacks and Native Americans “savages”.

Another of EA’s tenants reported that EA stated that there was no “damn way” he would rent to Indians from Belcourt.

EA asked a white prospective tenant if she would have any problem living next to black people.

EA’s former office manager told JC and WC that EA called blacks “niggers” and that he did not like blacks.

EA’s former office manager told WC that EA considered JC to be a “nigger in the woodpile”.

EA’s former office manager reported that EA was discriminatory toward blacks in that he called them “niggers” and that he discriminated against Native Americans in that he didn’t want to make repairs to their units because “they would just break things again”.

EA’s former office manager reported that EA was discriminatory toward people with disabilities in that they were the last people to get repairs made.

EA’s former office manager recorded EA’s telephone threat not to say anything that would hurt him, or that she would “regret it”.

The Division of Human Rights should find probable cause that discrimination has occurred when a “reasonable person” would determine that discrimination has occurred, which is distinguished from a “preponderance of the evidence” (a higher standard) or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (a yet higher standard).

The Division of Human Rights disregarded EA’s racial slurs and discriminatory comments about blacks, Native Americans and disabled people because they were not made directly to JC and WC.

The Division of Human Rights decided that a reasonable person would not determine that discrimination had occurred in this case. This standard is less than a preponderance of evidence, which would require that it was more likely than not that discrimination had occurred. A tenant is required to dispose of a therapeutic dog, has rent increases that other tenants do not have, and the landlord uses racial slurs and makes discriminatory comments about blacks, and the Division of Human Rights decided that a reasonable person would not decide that the disparate treatment was related to the landlord’s racist and discriminatory attitudes.

If a North Dakota Commission on Human Rights were in place, this decision could have been appealed to that body. As it is now, the Division of Human Rights has publicly declared that it is permissible to treat black tenants differently than white tenants, to use racial slurs, to make discriminatory comments about blacks, Native Americans and disabled people, to be a real estate agent taking these actions, and as long as the comments are not made to the black, Native American or disabled tenants, they do not harm the black, Native American or disabled tenants and do not relate to the disparate treatment of those tenants.

North Dakota wishes to embrace diversity and encourage the development of a diverse workforce. When it is the decision of the Division of Human Rights in the North Dakota Department of Labor that a reasonable person would not decide that discrimination has occurred in these circumstances, North Dakota will not be able to encourage people of color or people from other countries to live in North Dakota, and North Dakota will continue to lose those who do live here. As it is now, this is the public decision of the Division of Human Rights in the North Dakota Department of Labor.

This site is hosted by

Digital Domain

Hosting

Last update: May 07, 2008

North Dakota Human Rights Coalition

P.O. Box 1961

Fargo, North Dakota 58107-1961

Phone: (701) 239-9323

Fax: (701) 478-4452

Email: humanrights@ndhrc.org

Report Problems with Our Website