« AnteriorContinuar »
wherein the unlawful discriminatory practice which is the subject of the commission's order was committed or wherein any respondent required in the order to cease and desist from an unlawful discriminatory practice or to take affirmative action resides or transacts business.
(B) Such proceedings shall be initiated by the filing of a petition in court as provided in division (A) of this section and the service of a copy of the said petition upon the commission and upon all parties who appeared before the commission. Thereupon the commission shall file with the court a transcript of the record upon the hearing before it. The transcript shall include all proceedings in the case, including all evidence and proffers of evidence. The court shall thereupon have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the questions determined therein and shall have power to grant such temporary relief of restraining order as it deems just and proper and to make and enter, upon the record and such additional evidence as the court has admitted, an order enforcing, modifying and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or part, the order of the commission. The court shall require the posting of a sufficient bond before granting temporary relief or a restraining order in a case involving a violation of division (H) of section 4112.02 of the Revised Code.
(C) An objection that has not been urged before the commission shall not be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection is excused because of extraordinary circumstances.
(D) The court may grant a request for the admission of additional evidence when satisfied that such additional evidence is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the hearing before the commission. .
(E) The findings of the commission as to the facts shall be conclusive if supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record and such additional evidence as the court has admitted considered as a whole.
(F) The jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and order shall be final subject to appellate review. Violations of the court's order shall be punishable as contempt.
(G) The commission's copy of the testimony shall be available at all reasonable times to all parties without cost for examination and for the purposes of judicial review of the order of the commission. The petition shall be heard on the transcript of the record without requirement of printing.
(H) If no proceeding to obtain judicial review is instituted by a complainant, or respondent within thirty days for the service of order of the commission pursuant to this section, the commission may obtain a decree of the court for the enforcement of such order upon showing that respondent is subject to the commission's jurisdiction and resides or transacts business within the county in which the petition for enforcement is brought.
(I) All suits brought under this section shall be heard and determined as expeditiously as possible. 8 4112.07 Posting of notice.
Every person subject to division (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 4112.02 of the Revised Code, shall post in a conspicuous place or places on his premises a notice to be prepared or approved by the commission which shall set forth excerpts of this chapter and such other relevant information which the commisison deems necessary to explain sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 inclusive, of the Revised Code.
Senator Javits. Mr. Sawyer, in view of the fact that you have had this law for some years, have you not
Mr. SAWYER. No, sir. It went into effect October 31, 1965.
Senator Javits. You have had, let us say, 6 months or so experience with it. What makes you think that Federal laws are going to be very much harder to live with than your State law?
Mr. SAWYER. We have not suggested, sir, that the Federal law will be hard to live with. The Ohio law, we believe, is and has been ineffective, and we merely suggest that the Federal law in our opinion will be equally ineffective.
Senator JAVITs. The Ohio law has been effective?
Senator JAVITS. In what way!
Mr. SAWYER. It has not solved the problem that it presumes to solve.
Senator Javits. It has only been on the books 6 months.
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. Counsel, if you please, has statistics on that.
Mr. Folk. Since the law went into effect in the public housing area, there have been 56 complaints filed, all of which are in the conciliation stage. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of these complaints are in the rental area. In my discussions with Mr. Ellis Ross, who is the director of this in Ohio, he told me that only a very small number, and I personally only have knowledge of two cases which were filed against realtors. In the one case there was a situation where the complainant alleged matters which came within the exclusion of the law. In the other case, at the conciliation meeting, with the members and the referee for the Commission, we were able to show that the realtor had done everything that the law required of him. Actually what had happened here was a lady thought that she had been discriminated against, and so she filed against several realtors and a builder and it was kind of a “shotgun” sort of a thing that ensnared this particular realtor. So, so far as the realtors are concerned, we have
Senator JAVITS. The Ohio law has the commission form of administration, does it not?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. It is administered by the Civil Rights Commission. The Ohio law is greatly different, however, than the proposed Federal law in that it does not apply to single family dwellings.
Senator Javits. Or to two- family dwellings.
Senator Javits. Would that make a major difference in your opposi. tion to this measure?
Mr. SAWYER. None whatsoever, sir. We simply think that the method of approach is wrong.
Senator Javits. If there were a federally established housing discrimination law, would you rather have a commission type of administration or the individual suit type which is contained now in this administration bill?
Mr. SAWYER. We think there is a wide latitude. I have personally been a member of a commission, and we think that justice is many times bent in commissions by the admission of evidence that wouldn't be admitted in a court of law, et cetera. So that I believe I would rather see it adjudicated in the court system.
Senator JAVITS. Individual suits?
Mr. Sawyer, on page 4 of your statement the last paragraph wasn't quite clear to me. You say the enforcement provision provides a vehicle for political and discriminatory enforcement?
Am I correct in stating what you aver to there is the discretion given to the Attorney General as to when and where he may bring suit?
Mr. SAWYER. Precisely, without direction and without a set of definitive standards by which one could make an adequate defense.
Mr. Avtry. Perhaps your counsel may want to answer this question. Have you a copy of the bill there?
Mr. Folk. Title IV is all I have. Mr. Autry. That is all right. I call your attention to section 403 (c), if you will look at that for just a minute please. It is my understanding that in Ohio there are several Catholic colleges.
Mr. FOLK. Yes.
Mr. AUTRY. Assume that in the vicinity of the campus of one of these colleges there is a Catholic family that advertises rooms for rent in the paper which says “Catholic family has room to rent to Xavier student." Now, in your opinion, under the terms of 403(c), would this be in violation?
Mr. Folk. It sounds to me like it would be, because I would think that as soon as they indicated what they were, that this would be an implication of, an indication of an intention to make a preference. There might be some question as to whether or not this would be proscribed under the Ohio law, but I would think it would be under the proposed statute.
Mr. AUTRY. Can you tell me whether in your experience since the Ohio law has passed there has been an impact on the housing industry, the real estate industry in one way or another such as might affect the flow of commerce?
Mr. FOLK. We have only had the thing 7 months. I can't really say that there is any impact on it at all. It looks to me like things are about the same now as they were before.
Mr. AUTRY. If you will refer to this for just a second, I would like to call your attention to section 406(c). Let us assume that title to a house has already passed to a third person who has taken possession. Could the court order the sale set aside and have title transferred to a complainant, in your opinion?
Mr. Folk. I think that is a good question. I think that the definitive language here, where the court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, is just as broad or just as narrow as that particular court might wish to make it.
Mr. AUTRY. It is possible?
Mr. FOLK. It is a possibility, it is a real possibility. It is a real danger in this draftsmanship:
Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Sawyer, just one question of you. Could you tell me how you personally handle real estate transactions? Is there any discrimination as far as the real estate profession is concerned?
Mr. SAWYER. Of course, there is both overt and covert discrimination. Indeed there is, and we make no denial of this. But how do we handle cases?
Mr. AUTRY. How do you handle a case, if a property owner asks you to restrict the sale of his house to members of his race?
Mr. SAWYER. If I may just for a moment speak of the Reverend Walter Jones' testimony this morning, where he said that realtors were often guilty of withholding houses from minority groups. I think that there is a grave misunderstanding, sometimes by misinformation, sometimes by malicious intent, of the realtor's role in this business.
We are agents for sellers, and the sellers direct us, as is common in any agency procedure, as to what they wish to do, and I don't think that any intelligent realtor would withhold any offer from any owner. In fact, he would be in violation of our State law if he did, and he certainly would be something less than prudent if he attempted it. So basically we act under the direction of the person with whom we are contracting, the owner, and, therefore, we think the realtor discharges his responsibility quite properly in that respect.
Mr. FOLK. If I may comment on that a little bit further, I think that it is interesting to note that if you look at the Ohio statute, I might say we have a complete text of the statute and an analysis of what the housing meant which we mailed to all 12,000 of our members, advising them to comply with the law and this is what the law requires, and so on and so forth. But, it is interesting that the impact, that the thrust of this law is directed at the people that really have the right to make the decisions, the people who put their names on the deeds. This is not a law that is directed at realtors. It is a law that is directed at owners.
Senator Javits. That is the Ohio law?
Senator Javits. Has any effort been made, Mr. Sawyer, and the president of the association, in your State by individual boards, that is in cities or areas, to come to an agreement on enforcing a code of ethics against discrimination or segregation?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. As I read to you, we adopted this code of ethics, and we mean it and we believe in it, and we have held innumerable educational seminars to enforce it.
We think that we, as realtors and brokers, are willing, ready and certainly want to shoulder our equal responsibility across the body politic of the community, but that we certainly are not to be singled out for infractions that are imaginary or harassing.
Senator Javits. But you also testified that if the owner of a piece of property tells you to discriminate, you will.
Nr. SAWYER. If you consider that discrimination, sir, the answer is yes, but we do not. We consider it a legal responsibility of our agency agreement.
Senator Javits. I understand. But if the owner says, “Don't sell this property to a Negro, don't bring me a Negro offer, don't bring me any Negro to look at it,” you don't.
Mr. ŠAWYER. We would either do one of two things. Not become a party to the agency or we would then abide by the direction of the contract.
Senator Javits. But your code of ethics doesn't say that you should reject any such agencies.
Mr. SAWYER. No, sir. Neither does it say that we must go out and carry the burden for the moral responsibility of the whole community.
Senator Javits. I see. All right, gentlemen, if there is nothing else to be added
Mr. SAWYER. We are very grateful for the time and we appreciate the opportunity to appear.
Senator Javits. Thank you. We are delighted to hear your views. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.
(Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the subcommittee recessed until 10:30 a.m., Thursday, June 16, 1966.)