CASPER, Wyo. — On Tuesday, the Casper City Council voted 8–1 on first reading in favor of a proposed new anti-discrimination ordinance. It would need to pass on two further readings in order to become law.
Prior to voting on the ordinance, the City Council considered an amendment suggested by Vice Mayor Bruce Knell to add “age” as one of the protected characteristics under the proposed anti-discrimination law. The council voted 9–0 in favor of this amendment, with Councilmember Steve Cathey, who voted against the ordinance itself, voting yes to the amendment.
The ordinance would offer new protections against bias-motivated violence as well as discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. The protections would apply to anyone who faces discrimination because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, disability or, with the passage of the amendment on Tuesday, age.
Wyoming State Rep. Pat Sweeney, who lost in the Republican primary race to serve another term, told the City Council he was glad to see them pass protections against bias-motivated crime, noting that such efforts have not been successful in the Wyoming Legislature.
Attorney Keith Nachbar spoke against the proposed ordinance. Nachbar, who said he served as a municipal judge for 18 years in Casper, noted that age was not initially included as a protected characteristic. His comments prompted the amendment the council later adopted during the meeting.
Nachbar added that he thinks there are already sufficient federal protections against discrimination in things like employment. As the proposed ordinance aims to deal with discrimination as a criminal rather than civil matter, Nachbar said he thinks employers in Casper should be concerned that enforcement of the ordinance may hinge on search warrants and law enforcement searches of employers’ properties.
“This foray by the city should have every business owner in this town worried and considering relocating,” he said.
Knell and Councilmember Kyle Gamroth later said that the City Council has received communication from a number of employers expressing support for the proposed ordinance.
Kyle True expressed concern about the ordinance and what he described as a lack of clarity in terms of the definitions of protected characteristics listed in it. He also said he thinks it may be difficult to clearly define “hate” and that the proposed ordinance might be heading in a direction that penalizes people for holding different beliefs.
Knell drew an example from football to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to offer protections when someone is specifically targeted, noting that the NFL offers protections for quarterbacks in some situations.
“Why does that quarterback get special treatment compared to anybody else on the field?” Knell asked. “Because he is vulnerable, because he is in a vulnerable place. And there have to be rules in place to protect people that are vulnerable.”
Councilmember Amber Pollock said she thinks the ordinance protects everyone, not only minorities. She said that everyone is covered by the protected characteristics as everyone has things like a race, a national origin and a sexual orientation. If someone in the majority were to be explicitly targeted for a protected characteristic, the protections in the ordinance would apply to them as well, Pollock said.
As for the need to take into account intent and motive when it comes to acts of violence or destruction, Pollock gave an example.
“It is more harmful for somebody to spray paint a swastika on a synagogue than it is for somebody to go spray paint a random symbol in an alley in Casper,” she said. “One of those things is property damage, which is a crime in and of itself. But one of them is property damage with the intent to intimidate or incite violence against a particular group of people. In that case, it is not just the property owner that has been victimized, it is the entire set of the population that shares that identity.
“That is why for me it is more than appropriate to treat those crimes differently, because the impact is different.”
Councilmember Lisa Engebretsen said she is an employer who works in real estate and has personally faced sexual harassment and also sees tenants deal with discrimination. She said instances occur on a daily basis.
“I have seen all sorts of things, probably 10 different incidents just today,” Engebretsen said, arguing against the idea that Casper is somehow immune to discriminatory behavior.
After resident Dennis Steensland had questioned the need for the ordinance, suggesting it might protect only about 100 people, Councilmember Jai-Ayla Southerland said she doesn’t think the number of people being protected matters.
“I think it doesn’t really matter if there are 5 people or 5,000 people here impacted,” she said. “Each one of our community members matters and deserves to feel safe.”
In his dissenting opinion, Cathey said he thinks the ordinance is based on an approach that splits people up into different groups rather than bringing them together. While he said respect and treating others with dignity is important, he doesn’t think this can be legislated.
“That has to come from within,” he said.
Mayor Ray Pacheco said he thinks that with most states having passed anti-discrimination laws, Wyoming should not feel proud of its “independence” on this issue “when the rest of the country chooses to see hate for hate.”
Pacheco said that he feels confident supporting the ordinance and that he will support it throughout the three reading processes. Full comments from City Council members and residents can be reviewed in the video recording of Tuesday’s meeting:
While there are federal laws in place protecting against discrimination, the proposed ordinance would create new municipal-level penalties. The fine for violating the prohibitions against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations contemplated under the draft ordinance would be $750.
The draft ordinance would also create new enhanced penalties if a Casper municipal judge were to rule, based on evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person had committed assault, battery or an incitement of violence against someone because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, national origin or disability.
The proposed ordinance outlines burden of proof requirements as follows:
Burden of proof. Investigations of alleged violations of this code are undertaken based upon a strong showing of reasonable suspicion that the violation occurred because the alleged perpetrator’s actions were based on one or more protected characteristics of the victim(s). Reasonable suspicion is best demonstrated by expressions of bias, hate or prejudice, made or encouraged by the perpetrator at or near the time of the alleged violation, or, through a sustained pattern of conduct which demonstrates the perpetrator’s motivation. Violations of this code section, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Casper’s current ordinance establishes fines of up to $750 for a first assault offense. A Casper Municipal Court judge can impose fines of up to $750 and incarceration for up to six months for a second assault offense. The enhanced penalty that would be created by the proposed ordinance would allow the judge the option to sentence someone to up to six months for a first offense if it is ruled the assault was bias-motivated.
The proposed ordinance was drafted by City Attorney John Henley with input from members of the council’s LGBTQ Advisory Committee and input from members of the Casper City Council who attended a meeting in Cheyenne and learned about an anti-discrimination ordinance passed there.
Further context about the new proposed ordinance is available in this article.
A memo from Henley and the full draft ordinance can be reviewed below:
