Lexplug logoLexplug

Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville

Supreme Court of Arkansas
510 S.W.3d 258, 2017 Ark. 49, 2017 Ark. LEXIS 51 (2017)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state law enacted to create uniform nondiscrimination laws and obligations preempts a municipal ordinance that extends anti-discrimination protections to classifications not explicitly established in statewide civil rights statutes.


Facts:

  • The Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 137 of 2015, the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, to ensure uniform nondiscrimination laws for businesses across the state.
  • Act 137 prohibits any municipality from adopting an ordinance that 'creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.'
  • The Fayetteville City Council passed Ordinance 5781, with the stated purpose of extending existing civil rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens.
  • Ordinance 5781 defined 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' and prohibited discrimination on these bases, equating them to protections for race, religion, and gender under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.
  • To justify the new classifications, the City of Fayetteville cited other state statutes that mention 'sexual orientation' or 'gender identity' in different contexts, such as a law addressing anti-bullying policies in public schools.
  • On September 8, 2015, Fayetteville voters approved Ordinance 5781 in a special election.

Procedural Posture:

  • Protect Fayetteville and several individuals filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the City of Fayetteville in the Washington County Circuit Court.
  • The plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent a special election on Ordinance 5781 was denied by the circuit court.
  • After voters approved the Ordinance, the plaintiffs' motion to stay its enforcement was also denied.
  • The State of Arkansas intervened in the lawsuit, siding with Protect Fayetteville.
  • On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the City of Fayetteville, ruling that Ordinance 5781 did not violate Act 137.
  • Protect Fayetteville and the State of Arkansas, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a municipal ordinance that extends non-discrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity violate a state law prohibiting municipalities from creating a protected classification or prohibiting discrimination on a basis not contained in state law?


Opinions:

Majority - Josephine Linker Hart

Yes. A municipal ordinance that extends civil rights protections beyond those provided by statewide law violates a state statute intended to ensure uniformity. The plain language of Act 137 expressly states its purpose is to subject entities to 'uniform nondiscrimination laws and obligations.' Ordinance 5781 directly contravenes this purpose by stating its intent to 'extend' protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, which are classifications not protected under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. This action creates a nonuniform local standard, which is precisely what Act 137 was enacted to prevent. The city's reliance on other state laws, such as an anti-bullying statute, is misplaced because those laws are unrelated to broad nondiscrimination laws and do not create general protected classifications applicable to areas like employment or housing.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle of state preemption over municipal authority in the area of civil rights law in Arkansas. By narrowly interpreting the phrase 'on a basis not contained in state law,' the court prevents localities from creating a 'patchwork' of ordinances that offer more protections than the state's baseline. The ruling clarifies that a 'basis' must be found within a comparable, statewide anti-discrimination framework, not merely from a mention of a characteristic in an unrelated, context-specific statute. This precedent significantly curtails the power of Arkansas cities to enact LGBTQ+ protections and shifts the focus of such advocacy efforts to the state legislature.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville (2017) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville