Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville
2017 Ark. 49
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Fayetteville passed Ordinance 5781 (June 16, 2015; voter-approved Sept. 8, 2015) extending city nondiscrimination protections to sexual orientation and gender identity and stating it would "extend" protections like the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
- Arkansas enacted Act 137 (Feb. 24, 2015; effective July 22, 2015) — the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act — prohibiting counties/municipalities from adopting or enforcing an ordinance that "creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
- Appellants (Protect Fayetteville, et al.) and the State challenged the ordinance as violating Act 137; the circuit court held the ordinance did not violate the Act, relying on state statutes referencing "gender identity" and "sexual orientation."
- The circuit court found that "basis" in Act 137 meant the protected characteristic (e.g., sexual orientation) rather than the area of law, and concluded state law already contained those bases.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed de novo whether Ordinance 5781 conflicts with Act 137 and whether the ordinance created protections not contained in state nondiscrimination law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fayetteville Ordinance 5781 violates Act 137 by creating protected classes (sexual orientation, gender identity) not in state law | Ordinance improperly adds two protected classifications and thus creates nonuniform local law contrary to Act 137 | Ordinance merely recognizes protections already referenced in state statutes (e.g., antibullying, domestic-peace, vital Statistics) so it does not create new protected classes | Court held Ordinance 5781 violates Act 137 because it extends nondiscrimination protections in Fayetteville to classifications not contained in state nondiscrimination law, creating nonuniform obligations |
| Proper interpretation of the phrase "on a basis not contained in state law" in Act 137 | "Basis" spans the subject matter of nondiscrimination law and requires uniform, statewide determination of protected classes and prohibitions | "Basis" means the characteristic (e.g., sexual orientation) and some state statutes already include those characteristics | Court construed the statute in light of its express purpose (uniformity) and applied it to bar municipal expansion of protections absent state-level inclusion |
| Whether the cited state statutes (antibullying, Domestic Peace Act, Vital Statistics) supply "state law" protection for sexual orientation/gender identity | Appellants/State: those statutes do not establish statewide nondiscrimination protections or create protected classifications under general nondiscrimination law | Appellees: those statutes reference sexual orientation/gender identity and therefore constitute state law recognition of those bases | Court held those statutes do not function as statewide nondiscrimination laws creating protected classifications for purposes of Act 137; they are unrelated contexts and do not authorize municipal expansion |
| Whether the court should reach constitutionality of Act 137 | Appellants/State raised constitutional challenges | Appellees relied on circuit court not addressing constitutionality | Court declined to address constitutionality because circuit court had not ruled on it; issues must be preserved below |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 366 Ark. 277, 234 S.W.3d 875 (2006) (statutory-construction principles; plain-language de novo review)
- Cave City Nursing Home v. Ark. Dept. Human Servs., 351 Ark. 12, 89 S.W.3d 884 (2002) (hesitancy to interpret legislative acts contrary to express language)
- Priest v. Polk, 322 Ark. 673, 912 S.W.2d 902 (1995) (issues not addressed by trial court are not preserved for appeal)
- Landers v. Stone, 2016 Ark. 272, 496 S.W.3d 370 (2016) (procedural posture regarding appeals and preservation)