IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,
a municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Florida,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
CASE NO. 16-2017-CA-001263-XXXX-MA
DIVISION CV-E
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, JOHN PARSONS, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a), moves
the Court for an order granting summary judgment against Defendant, the CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. As shown herein, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
1. The grounds on which this motion is based are stated with particularity in Plaintiff’s
Complaint for Declaratory and Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (the “Complaint”),
which is incorporated herein by this reference.1 As shown in the Complaint, the HRO is null and
void for failure to comply with Florida Statutes, the Jacksonville Ordinance Code, and the Rules
of the Council of the City of Jacksonville. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-22.)
2. The substantial matters of law to be argued are principally set forth in the
Complaint, and additional such matters are set forth herein.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms used herein have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Complaint.
Filing # 54133468 E-Filed 03/23/2017 02:57:59 PM
2
3. The summary judgment evidence on which Plaintiff relies consists of the Affidavit
of John Parsons in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, attached hereto as MSJ
Exhibit A (the “Parsons Affidavit”), the Affidavit of Roger K. Gannam in Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, attached hereto as MSJ Exhibit B (the “Gannam Affidavit”), and
Complaint Exhibits A, B, and C.
ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS OF LAW TO BE ARGUED
4. Summary judgment must “be rendered forthwith if the pleadings and summary
judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); see Florida
Bar v. Greene, 926 So.2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006).
5. When a person asserts a legal challenge to the validity of an ordinance, “an original
declaratory judgment or injunction action in the circuit court is the proper vehicle.” Seminole
Entm't, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 866 So. 2d 1242, 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Bd. of Com'rs of
State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co., 100 So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).
6. Standing to challenge an illegally enacted ordinance does not require allegations or
proof of any special injury. See Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 838 (Fla. 1972) (“Any
affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to
challenge such an ordinance.”); Safer v. City of Jacksonville, 212 So. 2d 785, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA
1968); see also David v. City of Dunedin, 473 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding
“property owners or citizens who should have been given notice pursuant to [Fla. Stat. § 166.041]”
had standing to “make a general attack on the validity of the ordinance through an injunction in
circuit court . . . without alleging special damages.”)
7. Consistent with the foregoing authorities, Fla. Stat. § 166.041(7) codifies standing
“to initiate a challenge to the adoption of an ordinance . . . based on a failure to strictly adhere to
3
the provisions contained in this section” for “a person who was entitled to actual or constructive
notice at the time the ordinance . . . was adopted.” Persons entitled to constructive notice of the
proposed adoption of an ordinance, and thus having standing to challenge its adoption for failure
to comply with Fla. Stat. § 166.041, are all persons within the municipality. Fla. Stat.
§ 166.041(3)(a).2
8. In addition to the constructive notice requirements of § 166.041(3)(a), the
amendatory language republication requirements of § 166.041(2) also serve a notice function:
“We have also held that the . . . provision was designed to inform
both the legislature and the public of the nature and extent of
proposed changes in existing laws. For this reason it is required that
when a specific section or subsection is being amended it should
be republished with the proposed amendment so that an
examination of the act itself will reflect the changes
contemplated, as well as their impact on the amended statute.”
See City of Hallandale v. State ex rel. Zachar, 371 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (emphasis
added) (quoting Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 153 So. 2d 722, 725
(Fla. 1963)3).
2 The applicable constructive notice provision requires that all ordinances, except for certain
emergency and zoning ordinances,
be noticed once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality. The notice of proposed enactment shall state the date,
time, and place of the meeting; the title or titles of proposed
ordinances; and the place or places within the municipality where
such proposed ordinances may be inspected by the public. The
notice shall also advise that interested parties may appear at the
meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance.
Fla. Stat. § 166.041(a) (emphasis added).
3 Courts interpreting the language of Fla. Stat. § 166.041(2), governing the legal
requirements for amendatory city ordinances, look to cases interpreting the counterpart language
of the Florida Constitution governing the same requirements for amendatory state statutes, Art. III,
§ 6, Fla. Const. (formerly Art. III, § 16, Fla. Const.). See City of Hallandale, 371 So. 2d at 188
(“Subsection 2, which specifies procedural requirements for the enactment of municipal
ordinances, actually embodies Article III, s 16, of the Florida Constitution as it pertains to state
statutes.”)
4
9. Under the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 166.041(2), amendatory ordinances must,
at a minimum, republish the paragraph of the ordinance section or sub-section being amended. See
City of Hallandale, 371 So. 2d at 188 (“‘“The explicit terms of the . . . provision contemplate that
in a proper case reenactment of a single paragraph of a sub-section is sufficient.”’” (quoting
Jackson v. Consol. Gov't of City of Jacksonville, 225 So. 2d 497, 507 (Fla. 1969)). In addition to
the minimum requirement to republish the paragraph being amended, “enough of the act being
amended must be republished to make the meaning of the provision published intelligible from its
language and to insure that no unexpected meaning results from the combination of that language
and other language in the Act.” Jackson, 225 So. 2d at 508 (internal quotation marks omitted).
10. “Florida follows the majority view whereby measures passed in contravention of
notice requirements are invalid (null and void if not strictly enacted pursuant to the requirement of
section 166.041).” Daytona Leisure Corp. v. City of Daytona Beach, 539 So. 2d 597, 599 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1989) (citing Fountain v. City of Jacksonville, 447 So. 2d 353, 355 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984));
Coleman v. City of Key West, 807 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“The notices are mandated
in order to protect interested persons, who are thus given the opportunity to learn of proposed
ordinances; given the time to study the proposals for any negative or positive effects they might
have if enacted; and given notice so that they can attend the hearings and speak out to inform the
city commissioners prior to ordinance enactment. Noncompliance with the notice provisions takes
away or reduces these opportunities.”); see also David, 473 So. 2d at 306 (“Accordingly, we hold
that because appellants proved that the ordinance under which they were cited and its predecessor
were invalidly enacted, the trial court erred in refusing to issue the injunction to restrain appellees
from enforcing the ordinances.”
5
APPLICATION OF LAW TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
11. As shown by the Parsons Affidavit, Plaintiff is a resident of Jacksonville, Florida,
and has been at all times relevant to the adoption of the HRO. Accordingly, Plaintiff was entitled
to notice of the proposed adoption of the HRO pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 166.041(3)(a), and therefore,
pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 166.041(7) and applicable precedent, Plaintiff has standing to challenge the
validity of the HRO based on the failure of the City to adhere to the provisions of Fla. Stat.
§ 166.041. See supra, ¶¶ 5-7.
12. As shown by Complaint ¶¶ 1-22 (including Complaint Exhibits A-C) and the
Gannam Affidavit, neither the publicly noticed nor the enacted versions of the HRO adhered to
the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 166.041, either strictly or otherwise. Accordingly, the HRO is null
and void, and Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against its enforcement. See supra,
¶¶ 8-10.
13. As shown by Gannam Affidavit Exhibit 1, at the time the Complaint was filed, the
City took the position that the HRO was a validly enacted law. In its Motion to Dismiss filed March
22, 2017, the City maintains this erroneous position. (Mot. Dismiss at 1, n.1.) Accordingly, the
City’s position on the validity of the HRO is adverse to Plaintiff’s, and there is a need for a
declaration of the validity of the HRO.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment declaring that the HRO is null and void,
permanently enjoining the City from enforcing the HRO, and awarding Plaintiff his costs of this
action pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.081 and as otherwise allowed by law, together with such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper
6
DATED this March 23, 2017.
/s/ Roger K. Gannam
Mathew D. Staver (Fla. 701092)
Horatio G. Mihet (Fla. 26581)
Roger K. Gannam (Fla. 240450)
LIBERTY COUNSEL
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, Florida 32854
T: (407) 875-1776
F: (407) 875-0770
Attorneys for Plaintiff, John Parsons
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that a copy of this document has been filed electronically through the Florida
Courts eFiling Portal this March 23, 2017, and that the following will receive electronic service of
the document:
Jason R. Teal
Gabriella Young
Craig D. Feiser
City of Jacksonville
Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 630-1700 (Telephone)
(904) 630-1316 (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendant,
City of Jacksonville, Florida
/s/ Roger K. Gannam
Roger K. Gannam
Attorney for Plaintiff
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 16-2017-CA-001263-XXXX-MA DIVISION CV-E
vs.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Defendant. -------- -------
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN PARSONS
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ST A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DUVAL
1. My name is John Parsons, and I am over 21 years of age.
2. I am the named Plaintiff in this action, I have personal knowledge of the matters
set forth herein, and am competent to testify to such matters.
3. I currently reside in Jacksonville, Florida, and have resided in Jacksonville for
approximately four years.
4. I am a registered voter in Jacksonville, Florida, in City Council District 5, and have
been for approximately four years.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SA YETH NAUGHT.
DATED this March ;.B, 2017.
JORN PARSONS
Page 1 of 2
MSJ Exhibit A
ST A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DUVAL
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, appeared John Parsons, who produced a Florida Driver License, showing an address in Jacksonville, Florida, as identification, and who, after being duly sworn, says that the foregoing Affidavit of John Parsons in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is true and correct.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on thisdS day of March, 2017.
,,,,,.,.,,,,, D. M. DAMEWOOD '''\p.flY P(JIJ ,, /.-iE''~\ Notary Public - State of Florida
~ • : · 1 My Comm. Expires Jul 6, 2017 ;i, 'i:l::il Commission # FF 007454
'•,f;,'ff,[,\,,•'' Bonded Through National Notary Assn.
Notary Public, STATE OF FLORIDA Printed Name: ------------
Type/Print/Stamp Name of Notary, Commission No. & Expiration Date:
Page 2 of 2
JOHN PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation and political sub di vision of the State of Florida,
Defendant. I
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUY AL COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-2017-CA-001263-XXXX-MA DIVISION CV-E
AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER K. GANNAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ST A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE
1. My name is Roger K. Gannam, and I am over 21 years of age. I submit this
declaration upon personal knowledge, except where indicated.
2. I am an attorney and the Assistant Vice President of Legal Affairs for Liberty
Counsel, and an attorney ofrecord for Plaintiff, John Parsons, in this case.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail exchange
(including attachments, highlighting added) between Jason Gabriel, General Counsel for the City
of Jacksonville, and me, dated February 22, 2017, Subject: HRO Veto.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the original text of
proposed Ordinance 2017-15, Jacksonville Ordinance Code, as published by the Jacksonville City
Council on it's official website, at http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/C0Jbil1Detail.asp?F=2017-
0015\0riginal%20Text (last visited March 21, 2017).
Page 1 of 2 MSJ Exhibit B
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the online version of the
public notice of proposed enactment of Ordinance 2017-15, stating the date, time, and place of the
public hearing on the proposed ordinance; the title of the proposed ordinance; and the place where
the proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public; and advising that interested parties may
appear at the hearing and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance; as was published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Jacksonville, the Financial News and Daily Record,
and which is available now on the newspaper's website, at http: //www.jaxdailyrecord.com/
publicnotice.php (last visited March 21 , 2017).
DATED this March 21 , 2017.
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, appeared Roger K. Gannam, who is personally known to me, and who, after being duly sworn, says that the foregoing Affidavit of Roger K. Gannam in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is true and correct.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this ~\ day of March, 2017.
~~ Notary Public, S] TE OE Fa &.-6 Printed Name: \'(!JlJ,s ~a (fQ'c
Type/Print/Stamp Name of Notary, Commission No. & Expiration Date:
Page 2 of2
From: Gabriel, JasonTo: Roger GannamSubject: RE: HRO VetoDate: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:56:46 AM
Roger –
The Charter gives the Mayor a certain timeframe to exercise his right to veto, sign or not signlegislation. The Mayor fulfilled his Charter-prescribed duty the night of the vote by officially lettingthe law go into effect without his signature.
The effective date of the law is the date he signs, or if he chooses not to sign, the date it wasenacted by Council. Accordingly, Ordinance 2017-15-E became law on February 14, 2017 without hissignature. His action is final.
Thank you,
-Jason G.
From: Roger Gannam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:38 AMTo: Gabriel, JasonSubject: HRO Veto
Jason, I trust you are aware of the ongoing debate regarding the mayor’s continuingauthority to veto the HRO. You may have seen the memorandum we released yesterday(copy attached) on the issue.
Although I have seen some statements attributed to you, and others attributed tocouncil members, I have not seen any analysis engaging the argument in ourmemorandum, or even engaging the text of the Charter. Most of what I have seen islittle more than “that’s just not how it works.”
Has your office prepared any official guidance on the issue?
Regards, Roger
Roger K. Gannam, Esq.†Assistant Vice President of Legal AffairsLiberty CounselPO Box 540774Orlando, FL 32854407-875-1776 phone407-875-0770 faxwww.LC.org
EXHIBIT 1
Offices in DC, FL, VA†Licensed in Florida
This message (and any attached files) is intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If youare not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer, because anydistribution of this message by you is strictly prohibited. Email cannot be guaranteed secure or error-free. We do not accept responsibilityfor errors or omissions herein that result from email transmission. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are solely those of theauthor and do not necessarily represent those of Liberty Counsel.
Post Office Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854-0774 Telephone: 407•875•1776 Facsimile: 407•875•0770 www.LC.org
122 C Street, NW Suite 360
Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202•289•1776 Facsimile: 202•737•1776
Post Office Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24506-1108
Telephone: 434•592•7000 Facsimile: 434•592•7700
February 20, 2017
MEMORANDUM
From: Roger K. Gannam
Assistant Vice President of Legal Affairs
Re: Mayor Curry Can Still Veto the HRO
Summary
• The City Charter does not allow the mayor to give an ordinance
immediate effect without his signature.
• Mayor Curry’s announcement that he will allow the HRO to become
law without his signature does not give the HRO immediate effect.
• Mayor Curry still has the power to veto the HRO at or before the
February 28 City Council meeting.
Relevant Facts
On February 14, 2017, the Jacksonville City Council voted to adopt bill 2017-15, the
so-called “Human Rights Ordinance” or “HRO.” The ordinance contained standard language
making the ordinance “effective upon signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without
the Mayor's signature.” Barely an hour after the vote to adopt the HRO, Mayor Curry announced
to the Council that he would allow the HRO to become law without his signature. Around the same
time, Mayor Curry issued a public message:
As your Mayor, I promised to convene community
conversations about discrimination. At the conclusion of those
conversations, I exercised an executive action to implement a clear
policy for city of Jacksonville employees and contractors. I said then
and continue to believe additional legislation was unnecessary. But
this evening, a supermajority of the City Council decided otherwise.
This supermajority, representatives of the people from both parties
and every corner of the city, made their will clear.
Re: Mayor Curry Can Still Veto the HRO
Page 2
Now, with the issue resolved, I invite City Council and all
the people of Jacksonville to join me as we confront serious issues
like the final steps of pension reform to bring us financial security
and increase our efforts to end the violence and crime hurting
innocent people in our city.
Following these announcements, it was widely claimed that the HRO had become law. For
the reasons below, this claim is false. Accordingly, Mayor Curry can still veto the HRO.
Legal Analysis
The Charter of the City of Jacksonville provides the mayor three options for responding to
an ordinance adopted by the city council: The mayor can approve the ordinance, disapprove (veto)
the ordinance, or do nothing:
Section 6.05. – Mayor’s veto power.
. . . .
Any ordinance or resolution adopted by the council over which the
mayor has a veto power shall be presented to the mayor for his
consideration and recommendations. If he approves the ordinance
or resolution he shall sign it and it shall become effective according
to the terms thereof. If he disapproves he shall return the ordinance
or resolution to the council without his signature, accompanied by a
message indicating the reasons for his disapproval and
recommendations. . . . Any resolution or ordinance shall become
effective on the date provided therein unless it be disapproved by
the mayor and returned to the council at or prior to the next regular
meeting of the council occurring 10 days or more after the date when
the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the mayor's office for
consideration. . . .
According to the foregoing Charter Section 6.05, the mayor may approve an ordinance by
signing it, in which case it becomes effective upon his signature. The mayor may disapprove an
ordinance by returning it to council without his signature, “accompanied by a message indicating
the reasons for his disapproval and recommendations,” in which case the ordinance is vetoed. Or,
the ordinance will become effective without the mayor’s signature if he does not veto it—i.e., does
nothing—before the next regular council meeting which is ten or more days after the ordinance
was “delivered to the mayor's office for consideration.”
Assuming the final, amended version of the HRO (2017-15-E) was “presented to the mayor
for consideration” under Charter Section 6.05 above, Mayor Curry had three options: (1) approve
the ordinance by signing it, (2) disapprove the ordinance by returning it without his signature (with
his disapproval message and recommendations), or (3) do nothing. Which option did Mayor Curry
choose? As a legal matter, Mayor Curry did nothing.
Re: Mayor Curry Can Still Veto the HRO
Page 3
During the same council meeting in which the HRO was adopted by the council, Mayor
Curry communicated to the council that he would allow the ordinance to become law without his
signature. Around the same time, Mayor Curry delivered a public message, containing both a
reason for his disapproval (“legislation was unnecessary”) and a recommendation (“Now . . . join
me as we confront serious issues”).
It apparently is the position of the City, and it has been widely reported by the local media,
that the HRO became law upon Mayor Curry’s announcement that he would let the ordinance
become law without his signature. Charter Section 6.05, however, does not provide any mechanism
for an ordinance to become law immediately upon an announcement by the mayor that he would
not sign it. Only signing the ordinance could accomplish immediate effect. Because Mayor Curry
did not sign it, the HRO did not take immediate effect.
So what is the legal effect of Mayor Curry’s messages to the council and the public? There
are only two possible answers under Charter Section 6.05: Mayor Curry’s messages either had no
effect, or they had the effect of a veto.
A compelling argument can be made that Mayor Curry actually vetoed the HRO, as a
matter of law, because he performed the two statutory acts effecting a veto: (1) He “returned” the
ordinance “without his signature,” (2) “accompanied by a message indicating the reasons for his
disapproval and recommendations.” But, given that Mayor Curry also announced he intended to
let the ordinance become law without his signature, it is unlikely a court would ultimately conclude
that the ordinance was vetoed.
Nonetheless, it has been argued (erroneously) that the reason Mayor Curry’s announcement
during the council meeting gave the ordinance immediate effect was because Mayor Curry
“returned” the ordinance to the council. Putting aside the fact that there is no basis in the Charter
to conclude that a “return” without a signature can give an ordinance immediate effect, a court
also could not easily find that the HRO was “presented to the mayor for his consideration” in the
first place, just minutes after it was adopted, when the final version with amendments would not
be typed until the next day. Nor could a court easily find that Mayor Curry then “returned” the
as-yet untyped ordinance to the council during the same meeting. But, if a hypothetical court could
get around these significant obstacles, then it may also interpret Mayor Curry’s “return” without
his signature, accompanied by his “message” of disapproval and recommendations, as a legal veto.
In any event, the more compelling argument is that Mayor Curry’s announcement that he
would allow the HRO to go into effect without his signature, and accompanying public message,
had no legal effect whatsoever. The ordinance itself specifies that it will “become effective upon
signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor's signature.” Mayor Curry
did not sign the ordinance, and it can only become effective without his signature according to
Charter Section 6.05, which does not allow for an ordinance to take immediate effect without
signature, and certainly does not allow the mayor to decide when an unsigned ordinance takes
effect. Accordingly, the HRO will not become law until the conclusion of the council meeting on
February 28, 2017. Until then, Mayor Curry still has the power to veto the HRO.
Introduced by Council Members Bowman, Hazouri and Love: 1
2
3
ORDINANCE 2017-15 4
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND 5
EXPANDING THE CITY’S EQUAL RIGHTS LAWS TO 6
PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON SEXUAL 7
ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY, AMENDING 8
SECTION 60.105 (FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES), 9
ORDINANCE CODE; AMENDING SECTION 400.101 10
(STATEMENT OF POLICY), ORDINANCE CODE; AMENDING 11
CHAPTER 402 (EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY), 12
ORDINANCE CODE; AMENDING CHAPTER 406 (PUBLIC 13
ACCOMMODATIONS), ORDINANCE CODE; AMENDING 14
CHAPTER 408 (FAIR HOUSING), ORDINANCE CODE; 15
PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT; PROVIDING FOR 16
EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; PROVIDING 17
FOR EXEMPTION FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS; PROVIDING 18
FOR SINGLE-SEX FACILITIES AND DRESS CODES; 19
PROVIDING FOR INTERPRETATION; AUTHORIZING THE 20
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL TO MAKE CODIFICATION 21
CHANGES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 22
23
WHEREAS, the City of Jacksonville is an inclusive and 24
welcoming community, wherein no discrimination should occur; and 25
WHEREAS, City of Jacksonville routinely competes with other 26
cities and counties, within Florida, in other states and 27
internationally, in the areas of economic development; and 28
WHEREAS, the City of Jacksonville seeks to be competitive in 29
attracting new industries, corporate relocations and expansions, 30
medical facilities, educational opportunities, conventions, 31
EXHIBIT 2
- 2 -
sporting, entertainment and cultural events, tourism, employee 1
recruitment and retention, and in other important categories; and 2
WHEREAS, the City of Jacksonville has great respect for the 3
many diverse religious communities represented by local houses of 4
worship and faith leaders, each of which and all of whom have been 5
carefully considered and provided for herein with appropriate 6
exemptions; and 7
WHEREAS, The City of Jacksonville is home to thriving small 8
businesses that form the backbone of the local economy, the needs 9
of which have been carefully considered and provided for herein 10
with appropriate exemptions; and 11
WHEREAS, The City of Jacksonville recognizes and appreciates 12
the contributions of the members of its lesbian, gay, bisexual and 13
transgender ("LGBT") community, and finds that a strong LGBT 14
community is a vital thread in the diverse tapestry of this City; 15
now therefore 16
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville: 17
Section 1. Legislative Findings. 18
It is hereby ascertained, represented, determined and declared 19
that: 20
(a) The Duval County School Board passed and enacted human 21
rights protections for its students, faculty, administrators, and 22
other employees in June 2012. 23
(b) In March 2016, after leading three community conversations 24
on the topic, Mayor Lenny Curry by departmental directive required 25
the City of Jacksonville to update its equal employment opportunity 26
policy to prohibit discrimination on the basis of an applicant or 27
employee's "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression," a 28
requirement which Mayor Curry also extended to vendors that 29
contract with the City. 30
(c) Following Mayor Lenny Curry's lead, Sheriff Mike Williams 31
- 3 -
extended human rights protections to all employees of the 1
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. In addition, several key independent 2
authorities, namely JEA, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 3
the Jacksonville Port Authority, and the Jacksonville Aviation 4
Authority have done the same. 5
(d) The Department of Defense, including the United States 6
Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Army, and Air Force, adopted policies 7
and procedures that protect LGBT service-members, and their 8
families, from discrimination. 9
Section 2. Amending Sections 60.105, 400.101, 400.301, 10
402.102, 402.107(g)(1), 402.107(g)(3), 402.201, 402.202, 402.203, 11
402.204, 402.206, 402.209, 402.210, 402.211, 406.102, 12
406.104(g)(1), 406.104(g)(3), 406.201, 408.102, 408.204, 408.401, 13
408.402, 408.403, 408.404, 408.406, and 408.407, Ordinance Code. 14
The foregoing sections of the Ordinance Code are hereby 15
amended as follows: wherever protected categories are listed, that 16
sexual orientation and gender identity, as defined in Section 3 17
below, shall be added to the list. 18
Section 3. Amending Sections 402.107, 406.104, and 19
408.105, Ordinance Code. 20
The foregoing sections of the Ordinance Code are hereby 21
amended as follows: 22
(a) Wherever definitions are provided, the definition of 23
sexual orientation shall be added and shall mean an individual's 24
actual or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or 25
bisexual. 26
(b) Wherever definitions are provided, the definition of 27
gender identity shall be added and shall mean the gender-related 28
identity, appearance, or expression of a person. Gender identity 29
may be demonstrated by a person's consistent and uniform assertion 30
of a particular gender identity, appearance or expression, or by 31
- 4 -
any other evidence that a person's gender identity is sincerely 1
held, provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted 2
for any improper, illegal or criminal purpose. 3
Section 4. Exemption for Religious Institutions. 4
Religious organizations, such as churches, synagogues, 5
mosques, and schools of religious instruction and non-profit 6
institutions or organizations affiliated therewith, are exempt from 7
the provisions contained herein. 8
Section 5. Exemption for Small Employers. 9
Since 1964, civil and human rights statutes at all levels of 10
government have exempted employers with fewer than 15 employees. 11
The same standard applies in the City of Jacksonville with respect 12
to employment discrimination claims under this provision. 13
Section 6. Single-Sex Facilities and Dress Codes. 14
(a) Nothing herein shall prohibit a business or a place of 15
public accommodation from providing single-sex restrooms, locker 16
rooms, shower facilities, bath houses, health spas, dormitory 17
lodging facilities and similar facilities that are by their nature 18
distinctly private. 19
(b) Nothing herein shall prohibit a business from establishing 20
and enforcing a dress code for its employees, provided that such 21
dress code shall not be based upon sex stereotypes. 22
Section 7. Interpretation. 23
Any ordinance or Charter provision or part of any Ordinance or 24
Charter provision in conflict with the provisions hereof is 25
repealed to the extent of the conflict. Should any part of this 26
Ordinance 2017-15-E be held invalid by a court of competent 27
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance 2017-15-E shall 28
continue in full force and effect and it shall be presumed that 29
this Ordinance 2017-15-E was enacted without the invalid provision. 30
Section 8. Authorizing the Office of General Counsel to 31
- 5 -
make Codification changes allowed by this Ordinance. The Office of 1
General Counsel is authorized to take all necessary action in 2
connection with this legislation, to execute the finalization and 3
codification of the legislation to effectuate the purposes of this 4
Ordinance as recommended by the Council Committees and enacted by 5
Council, without further Council action, provided such changes 6
implement the ordinance as approved by 2017-15-E. All such 7
finalization and codification shall be subject to appropriate legal 8
review and approval by the General Counsel, or designee, and all 9
other appropriate official action required by law. 10
Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become 11
effective upon signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective 12
without the Mayor's signature. 13
14
Form Approved: 15
16
/s/ Margaret M. Sidman17
Office of General Counsel 18
Legislation Prepared by: Wendy E. Byndloss 19
G:\SHARED\LEGIS.CC\2017\Ord\2017 HRO (1-3-17 draft).doc20
3/21/2017 www.jaxdailyrecord.com/publicnotice.php
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/publicnotice.php 2/3
ORDINANCE 201715 An Ordinance Concerning Equal Opportunity And Expanding The City’s Equal Rights Laws To
Prohibit Discrimination Based Upon Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity, AmendingSection 60.105 (Functions, Powers And Duties), Ordinance Code; Amending Section 400.101(Statement Of Policy), Ordinance Code; Amending Chapter 402 (Equal EmploymentOpportunity), Ordinance Code; Amending Chapter 406 (Public Accommodations), OrdinanceCode; Amending Chapter 408 (Fair Housing), Ordinance Code; Providing Legislative Intent;Providing For Exemption For Religious Institutions; Providing For Exemption For SmallEmployers; Providing For SingleSex Facilities And Dress Codes; Providing ForInterpretation; Authorizing The Office Of General Counsel To Make Codification Changes;Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201716
An Ordinance Regarding Equal Opportunity/Equal Access; Amending Section 400.217(Records And Reports), Part 2 (Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Program), Chapter 400(Equal Opportunity/Equal Access), Ordinance Code, To Include Reporting Requirement ToCity Council; Requesting The Mayor Include In The 20172018 Annual Budget For TheConsolidation Of The City Of Jacksonville Funding To Fill The Position Of The AssistantDirector For The Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Program; Requesting IndependentAgencies Diversified Workforce Reporting; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201717
An Ordinance Concerning A Continuation Grant; Appropriating Revenue Carried ForwardFrom Prior Years’ Appropriations, As Required By The U.S. Department Of Agriculture(Grantor), To Enhance The Afterschool Food Program In Fiscal Year 20162017, As InitiatedBy B.T. 17024; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201718
An Ordinance Appropriating $34,000 From The Northwest Jacksonville EconomicDevelopment Fund Miscellaneous Sales To The Northwest Economic Development Fund Subsidies & Contributions To Private Organizations To Provide A Grant To 2385 CorbettStreet, LLC (“Company”) For The Purpose Of Providing Funding In Connection With TheRenovation Of Unused Buildings Located Generally At 2385 Corbett Street, As Initiated ByB.T. 17045; Providing A Carryover Of Funds From Year To Year Until Such Funds AreExpended Or Lapse According To The Agreement; Approving And Authorizing Execution OfDocuments By The Mayor Or His Designee And Corporation Secretary; Authorizing ApprovalOf Technical Amendments By The Executive Director Of The OED; Providing For CityOversight By The OED; Waiving Certain Guidelines Approved And Adopted By Ordinance2007281E; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201719
An Ordinance Authorizing And Approving: (1) An Amendment To The RedevelopmentAgreement Between Jessie L. Wilcox And Rosa L. Wilcox (Collectively, “Developer”) AndThe City Of Jacksonville (“City”) Dated May 19, 2003 (“Redevelopment Agreement”); (2) AMortgage Modification Agreement Between The City And The Developer; And (3) AnAmended And Restated Promissory Note Between The City And Developer, For The PurposeOf ReAmortizing The Remaining Balance Of The Loan And To Extend The Term Of The NoteAnd Mortgage Evidencing The Loan For A Period Of Seven Years, To February 1, 2024, TheOriginal Loan Having Been Authorized By 2003300E; Authorizing Such Other ClosingDocuments And Technical Changes As May Be Required By The General Counsel, Or HisDesignee, And The Mayor’s Office, Provided That The City’s Costs Are Not Increased;Providing For City Oversight By The Office Of Economic Development; Waiver Of ThatPortion Of The Project Evaluation Criteria Of The Northwest Jacksonville EconomicDevelopment Fund Adopted By Ordinance 2007281E Which Would Require The SubmissionOf Annual Audited Financial Statements And A Third Party Underwriting Requirement;Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201720
An Ordinance Authorizing The Compensation And Benefits Division Of The EmployeeServices Department To Offer The Option To Enroll In The UF Health Plan To City EmployeesOr Retirees Covered Under The City’s Group Health Plan On March 31, 2017, Any New CityEmployees First Eligible To Participate In The City’s Employee Benefit Programs On Or AfterApril 1, 2017, And Any Retirees Covered Under Any City Group Health Plan Who Retire OnOr After April 1, 2017; Authorizing The Mayor To Negotiate, Execute And Deliver A ThirdParty Administrative Services Contract With Integra Administrative Group, Inc. (“Integra”) ToAdminister The UF Health Plan; Invoking The Exemption In 126.107(G), Ordinance Code;Waiving Section 116.1406(A) (Procurement Of Plan Administrator), Ordinance Code, To AllowThe City To Enter Into A Third Party Administrative Services Contract With Integra ToAdminister The UF Health Plan; Providing For City Oversight By The Compensation AndBenefits Division Of The Employee Services Department; Requesting One Cycle EmergencyPassage; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201721
An Ordinance Concerning Surplus City Personal Property Originally Purchased By TheFlorida Department Of Health In Duval County With Funding From The U.S. Department OfHealth And Human Services (HRSA) (The “Property”); Incorporating Recitals; Authorizing TheAppropriate Officials Of The City To Transfer The Property To Agape Community HealthCenter, Inc., The New Federal Qualified Health Center (FQHC) At No Cost In Order To AllowThe Continuation Of Intended Health Services; Waiving Conflicting Provisions Of Chapter122 (Public Property), Sections 122.811 (Sales Of Tangible Personal Property; Prohibition OfSales To Certain Persons), 122.812 (Surplus, Obsolete And Waste Supplies And OtherTangible Personal Property), And 122.821 (Disposal Of Surplus Vehicles And FleetEquipment), Ordinance Code, So As To Effect The Transfer Without Public Bidding And AtNo Cost; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201722
An Ordinance Concerning The Fiscal Year 20152016 Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA)Budget; Amending Ordinance 2015504E (The City Of Jacksonville Budget Ordinance) ToRevise The Total Number Of Temporary Hours And Revise JAA Budget Schedule G;Attaching And Incorporating Second Revised Schedule G; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201723
An Ordinance Declaring Jarboe Lane, A Private Road Running From Strickland Road ToKings Road In The City Of Neptune Beach, Florida, R.E. Number 1774190000, In CouncilDistrict 13 (The “Subject Parcel”), To Be Surplus To The Needs Of The City; Authorizing ItsConveyance To The City Of Neptune Beach At No Cost And Authorizing The Mayor And TheCorporation Secretary To Execute Any And All Documents Necessary For Such ConveyanceIn Accordance With The Provisions Of Subpart B (Real Property Dispositions), Part 4 (RealProperty), Chapter 122 (Public Property), Ordinance Code; Providing An Effective Date.
3/21/2017 www.jaxdailyrecord.com/publicnotice.php
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/publicnotice.php 3/3
ORDINANCE 201724 An Ordinance Approving, And Authorizing The Mayor, Or His Designee, And Corporation
Secretary To Execute And Deliver, The Hurricane Matthew Disaster Declaration FederallyFunded Public Assistance State Agreement Between The State Of Florida And The City OfJacksonville Allowing The City To Be Reimbursed For Eligible Costs And Damages FromHurricane Matthew; Providing For Oversight By The Emergency Preparedness Division OfThe Jacksonville Fire And Rescue Department; Providing An Effective Date. ORDINANCE 201725
An Ordinance Establishing A Temporary Moratorium On The Acceptance, Processing OrApproval Of Any Wireless Communication Towers Or Facilities In The City’s RightsOfWay;Providing An Effective Date.
A copy of the proposed ordinances may be examined in the Office of Legislative ServicesDivision of the City Council, Suite 430, City Hall, on weekdays between the hours of 8:00a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
All persons interested are notified to be present at said time and place, and they may beheard with respect to the proposed ordinances.DATED this 13th day of January, A.D. 2017.Council of the City of Jacksonville
Attest: Cheryl L. Brown
Council Secretary Jan. 13 (170234)
Subscribe to The Daily Record to view all of the information.
Displaying 1 to 1 (of 1 total) records
Search Again
Published for 27,152 consecutive weekdays
Covering events in the Realty and Building communities in Northeast Florida.
10 North Newnan Street · Jacksonville, FL 32202 · (904) 3562466 · Fax (904) 3532628 © 2017 Daily Record & Observer, LLC All Right Reserved.
Privacy Policy · Refund Policy