City Attorney Claims Urbana Employees are Free to Discriminate Against Residents Who Seek City Services

In a remarkable determination letter issued on May 13^th, 2020, Urbana City Attorney James Simon has declared that City employees are not bound by Urbana’s own anti-discrimination laws. Simon issued the letter in response to a complaint submitted to the Urbana Human Relations Commission which alleged that the a City employee was discriminating against residents who attempted to access City services.

The Urbana Human Rights Ordinance makes it broadly illegal for any person or business to discriminate

“by reason of race, color, creed, class, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status, physical and mental disability, personal appearance, sexual preference, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, prior arrest or conviction record or source of income, or any other discrimination based upon categorizing or classifying a person rather than evaluating a person’s unique qualifications.”

The Human Rights Ordinance defines what constitutes a “person” who is governed by this law:

“One or more individuals, labor unions, employers, employment agencies, partnerships, associations, creditors, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, government agency, trustees, owner, or any agent or representative of any of the foregoing.”

It seems clear that government agencies and representatives (employees) of government agencies are bound by the law. There exist numerous other passages within the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance that reinforce this position, and there exists no statement that would seem to exempt City employees or City services. According to Simon, however, the Human Relations Commission, which is tasked with such matters, has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint about a City employee.

Simon further argued that the notions of human rights listed in Urbana’s Human Rights Ordinance are not applicable to City services. This claim seems to be in direct conflict with multiple passages in the Ordinance which repeat language such as:

“The purposes of the human relations commission shall be to: Cooperate with the mayor, city council, city departments, agencies and officials in establishing and maintaining good community relations and securing the furnishings of equal services to all residents.”

The Ordinance then goes further, stating that there is no limit to the types of complaints that the commission may here:

“The purposes of the human relations commission shall be to: Receive and investigate complaints involving discrimination, as defined but not limited to, the protections of this chapter.”

Simon’s argument relies not on the text and stated intent of the Human Rights ordinance, but largely on the claim that it would be difficult for a civilian board such as the Human Relations Commission to manage complaints and hearings about City employees, since there would be a conflict interest. Ironically, the specific human rights complaint to which Simon was responding alleges that Human Relations Officer, Vacellia Clark, is discriminating against residents in regards to the acceptance of police misconduct complaints. The Civilian Police Review Board, designed to handle police misconduct complaints, is itself a blaring example of a civilian board which handles complaints against City employees.

It appears that Urbana City Attorney James Simon is not attempting to be genuine or truthful in his determination letter, but is simply advocating for his client with whatever argument he can muster. Arguing that City employees, and the City of Urbana itself, are free to discriminate against its own residents violates every stated intent and meaning of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance.

The Urbana Human Rights Ordinance can be viewed here.

Simon’s complete determination letter can be viewed here.