(It Begins!) UNC SOG says Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity policies now OKAY for local government contracts

The NCGOPe is spinning hard – trying to tell us the big changes in HB2 are put off until at least 2020.  But at least one leading House Republican — in an email to his colleagues today — is suggesting that ain’t exactly so: 

Subject: HB2 Reset Beyond Bathrooms . . . Local Government Contracting Limitations Repealed – Coates’ Canons Coates’ Canons


With the repeal of HB2 the cities can and are now Requiring private businesses to adopt local Sexual Identity and Gender Identity (SOGI) policies as a condition of contracting or even bidding – even against their Right of Conscious or they CANNOT? even bid on a job from a Governmental Agency.

See what UNC School of Government is putting out.


In Kindest Regards,
Dean Arp

NC House District 69
Union County

So, what does the School of Government have to say? Let’s see: 

[…] So, what can cities and counties do or not do now that their contracting statutes have reverted to their pre-HB2 status?  Cities and counties must still comply with the limitations on their contracting authority that existed prior to HB2’s enactment last year.  Cities and counties still cannot require bidders to abide by employment-related restrictions that these local governments do not have the legal authority to impose on all employers within their jurisdictions, such as living wage requirements or requiring paid sick leave.  To the extent that existing law might be interpreted to grant cities and counties the authority to enact local ordinances establishing employment-related requirements on private employers that then could be imposed on bidders, H142 now imposes a moratorium on city and county ordinances regulating employment practices.  So at least until 2020, cities and counties are prohibited from enacting any local ordinances through which they could then impose employment-related requirements on bidders.

Perhaps the more significant impact on city and county contracting authority is the repeal of the prohibition under HB2 against imposing anti-discrimination requirements on bidders.  For example, under HB2, a city or county could not require bidders to provide a statement that the bidder does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender, or gender identity because state law under HB2 did not prohibit discrimination on those grounds.  Now, with the repeal of HB2, there does not appear to be a legal barrier to a city or county imposing such an anti-discrimination requirement on bidders.

Because the comparison of pre-HB2 status, HB2 status, and post-HB2 status of city and county contracting statutes can be confusing, here’s a simple comparison for two specific scenarios:

  • Can a city or county require a contractor to pay his employees a living wage or give his employees paid sick leave?
    • Pre-HB2: No
    • HB2: No
    • Post HB2: No
  • Can a city or county require a contractor to have an anti-discrimination policy relating to the contractor’s suppliers or subcontractors that includes nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender, or gender identity?
    • Pre-HB2: Yes
    • HB2: No
    • Post-HB2: Yes […]

Well, now …. 

4 thoughts on “(It Begins!) UNC SOG says Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity policies now OKAY for local government contracts

  1. And the Obama administration and friends in the media proclaim that someone or other claims something or other is likely to be (or could be) and so therefore we need to impeach Trump. There are so many assumptions and extrapolations of what might be that Im getting motion sickness. The SOG is just a UNC cut out with opinions. Heck its almost as bad as the COGS! And yes its likely or possible or actually could happen that someone comes up with a crack pot idea as to what the republicans really meant when they wrote the bill, and come up with an illegal ordinance and I would guess the state would have to go after them. Considering the left despises and ignores law I would put money on it. Id also guess they wont dare for some time. Maybe a year.

    1. John Blust has pointed out that it was Roy Cooper who produced the language of the bill, not the Republicans in the General Assembly. I think that raises the level of concern about a poison pill, and in reading section 2 closely, it is not hard to see how it could be stood on its head. The real danger is an AG opinion from our extremely liberal AG Josh Stein turning it on its head, but they will probably wait until the legislature is out of town for that. An AG opinion is not binding law, but it is something that liberal local governments could jump on to justify some bad new local ordinances.

  2. Not sure who is spinning who. The writer of that post is a former top advisor and General Counsel to to the Duke of Dare himself, Marc Badnight.

    1. That shows the level of infiltration. Local governments and school systems take School of Government pronouncements as gospel. This one will undoubtedly result in liberal local entities doing just what they suggest.

Comments are closed.