Expands marital and caregiver protections

Summary#

HB 2871 would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), rather than create a new law. Its stated goal is to protect equal opportunity and reduce discrimination; it adds marital status and family caregiver status to several parts of the Act. The bill is introduced and has been referred to the House State Government Committee, so it is not law.

  • Employers, employment agencies and labor organizations would face added rules against discrimination based on marital or family caregiver status in the listed employment practices.
  • People and businesses involved in housing and commercial property would face added rules against discrimination based on those statuses in the listed sales, rentals, financing and related practices. The bill keeps an exemption for housing for older persons.
  • “Marital status” would mean whether someone is single, married, divorced, separated or widowed. “Family caregiver status” would mean providing medical or supervisory care to someone related by blood, legal custody or marriage.
  • The bill adds these statuses to the Act’s general statement of a civil right to freedom from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation. But it does not amend the listed section on unlawful public-accommodation practices, leaving the effect there unclear.
  • The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission’s reporting and education provisions would include the added statuses. The education provision authorizes recommendations; it does not require a new curriculum or program.
  • For complaints under the Act, the bill adds the new statuses to the provision making the Act’s procedure exclusive for the same grievance if used. A person who first brings another action based on that grievance may not later use the Act’s procedure.

What it means for you#

  • Workers, job applicants and independent contractors: Employers could not take the listed employment actions against you because of marital or family caregiver status. The bill also adds those statuses to rules on application questions and other listed employment practices.
  • Renters, homebuyers and people seeking property financing: The bill would prohibit the listed discriminatory housing and commercial-property practices based on marital or family caregiver status. It also adds these statuses to specified rules against steering people or discouraging transactions through misleading representations.
  • People using public accommodations: The bill names these statuses in its general statement of civil rights, but does not amend the listed operative ban on unlawful public-accommodation practices. Whether it creates a new enforceable protection in that setting is unclear.
  • Taxpayers and the general public: The bill does not set a tax, fee or fine, or directly create a new public service.

Money#

No publicly available information gives an estimated public or private cost.

  • The bill specifies no new appropriation or staffing level.
  • The Commission would have added categories to consider in its reporting and other listed duties; any resulting administrative cost is not stated.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current PHRA, so I could not verify the bill’s changes against current law or confirm how each amended provision operates today.
  • The bill defines family caregiver status, but does not explain how a person would establish or prove that status.
  • The bill does not amend the listed unlawful-practice provision for public accommodations, so how the added statuses apply there is uncertain.
  • The text does not set out complaint intake rules, decision timelines, appeals or how the added categories would affect case handling.
  • The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment, but passage is uncertain because it is still at the introduced stage.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that a person’s marital status or care for a related person should not determine access to work, housing or property transactions.
  • Naming the statuses in specific employment and housing rules could make those protections clearer in the areas the bill lists.
  • Adding the statuses to Commission reporting could help lawmakers see what complaints are received and how they are handled.

Case against#

  • The added rules would create legal duties for employers and people or businesses involved in housing and property transactions, while the bill does not explain how caregiver status would be proved.
  • The bill’s treatment of public accommodations is unclear: it adds the statuses to the general civil-right statement but does not amend the listed operative prohibition.
  • The bill adds to the Commission’s reporting duties but provides no cost estimate or staffing plan.
  • The bill adds protected statuses to the Act’s exclusive-remedy rule; people with a grievance may have to choose between the Act’s procedure and another action based on the same grievance.