Durham, Orange County join other local governments to pass anti-discrimination rules

Durham and Orange County joined Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough Tuesday night in expanding their local anti-discrimination protections to include LGBTQ residents and others.

The Durham City Council voted unanimously to protect residents in employment and public accommodations from discrimination based on gender identity, sexuality and military status. The approved ordinance also will protect hairstyles, types and textures historically associated with race, beginning July 1.

The Bull City’s action builds upon a wave of North Carolina municipalities approving new policies in the wake of House Bill 142’s expiration in December.

Greensboro’s City Council also approved an anti-discrimination policy Tuesday night, followed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners with a unanimous vote to approve that jurisdiction’s local anti-discrimination rules.

HB 142 had banned local governments from enacting anti-discrimination policies for three years. State lawmakers had passed it in 2017 as a replacement bill to House Bill 2, also called “the bathroom bill,” which in 2016 required residents to use the bathroom in public facilities that matched the gender on their birth certificate.

Durham council member Charlie Reece remembered when both of those bills passed the N.C. General Assembly and expressed excitement about the city’s ordinance at Tuesday’s meeting.

“It will prohibit discrimination in ways that we were forbidden to before,” he said.

Council member Mark-Anthony Middleton acknowledged how grateful he felt to approve the ordinance the day before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

“I could not be more honored for history and circumstance to converge at this moment, to be in this position to be able to cast the vote for this ordinance tonight,” Middleton said.

Council member Javiera Caballero said the ordinance is a small, but important step towards a different future.

“I also just want to finally tell the queer kids out there, that I hope you know that we love you and we are fighting for you,” she said.

Durham will need more money to enforce the new ordinance, which builds on the city’s fair housing codes, city attorney Kim Rehberg said last week. Mayor Pro Tem Jillian Johnson suggested the city’s Human Relations Commission also could help with enforcement.

“I’m hopeful that we never have to force an action, that everyone in our community will simply follow these guidelines and not discriminate against people,” Johnson said.

Orange County policy, role

Orange County’s policy leaves it to the Human Relations Commission to investigate complaints of discrimination and either help resolve the problem, ask for a hearing before an administrative law judge, or give the person facing discrimination a letter authorizing them to pursue a civil lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court.

Hillsborough Town Board member Matt Hughes has suggested that the towns also let the commission handle their alleged violations.

Orange County’s policy protects residents from discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, source of income, disability, political affiliation and veteran status.

It does not include discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles, as Carrboro’s and Durham’s policies do, or levy fines on violators, as the Carrboro and Hillsborough policies do. Chapel Hill also does not spell out fines as a punishment for violations of its policy.

The county’s vote Tuesday was “an exciting opportunity for us to really fulfill our commitment to inclusion and equality,” Commissioner Mark Dorosin said.

Orange County started drafting its policy in early 2020, consulting with its Human Relations Commission for feedback months before the ban expired. The policy is needed, said Annette Moore, director of the county’s Human Rights and Relations office.

“We don’t get a lot of public accommodation cases but when we do they’re necessary,” Moore said. “So this adds a couple of additional sources of protection ... and if we can actually keep them, they will be monumental.”

State lawmakers haven’t indicated whether they might challenge the latest anti-discrimination policies. Senate Leader Phil Berger, in an interview posted last week on Twitter, said no lawmakers have approached him about responding.

“I think it is something that there will be some conversations about, but my thought is that the more likely next step for folks that have concerns about what may be taking place would be those people who might be directly impacted in a way, maybe on their religious liberties, their businesses, or something,” Berger said. “I think the courts probably will be the appropriate forum for us to look at it.”

Tami Fitzgerald, leader of the conservative Christian group N.C. Values Coalition, has warned local governments that their anti-discrimination policies could bring legal challenges.

This story was originally published January 19, 2021 at 8:36 PM.