Now
Fair
76°
High
82°
Low
63°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Bruning says discrimination commission incompetent

Comments 39 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Apr 02, 2008 - 07:44:15 pm CDT

The Legislature should disband the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission because it doesn’t properly investigate complaints, Attorney General Jon Bruning said Wednesday.

Bruning said his office will not be filing a lawsuit based on an NEOC decision because the person making the complaint is an illegal immigrant, and the NEOC investigators did not do their job well.

“This is another in a long line of cases that are not properly investigated or prepared,” Bruning said. “The NEOC has not done its job and the Legislature ought to consider shutting them down.”

Story Photo
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning

But the NEOC executive director says Bruning is refusing to file this case because of his policy on immigration, not because of the quality of the investigation.

The case involves a Lincoln couple who filed a housing discrimination case contending their landlord treated them differently because of their ethnic origin. The landlord asked for their driver’s licenses, inquired about people not on the lease living in the apartment and then sent them an eviction notice.

The man making the complaint, the husband, told Bruning this week that he did not want the state to file a lawsuit because he was an illegal immigrant and he didn’t want witnesses getting in trouble for helping him.

“It is not the policy of this office to use state resources to provide nonemergency public benefits or assistance to undocumented or illegal aliens,” Bruning said in a meeting with several reporters and in a letter to the NEOC saying his office will not file a lawsuit.

But Anne Hobbs, executive director of the NEOC, says the agency doesn’t ask about immigration status because the law doesn’t say you have to be a citizen to be protected.

“First of all, this is a solid case,” she said. “We did not ask about their legal status. We asked how they were treated legally.”

Hobbs said the attorney general’s office has known about this case for several months, and this is the first time that the attorney general has complained about the quality of the investigation.

NEOC staff asked the attorney general’s office for advice about investigating the case before the case went to the commission for its decision and again after the agency sent the case to the attorney general’s office, she said. They got no complaints about the investigation, she said.

The commission found probable cause that discrimination occurred during its Feb. 15 meeting, she said.

Wednesday’s standoff is a continuation of a fight between the NEOC and Bruning over the attorney general’s responsibility for NEOC complaints.

Hobbs and commissioners have pointed out that in the past five years Bruning’s office has taken to court, at most, one of the 105 cases alleging aging and housing discrimination.

In late January Bruning said that he would take the next NEOC case if the NEOC board believed it was sufficient.

This tenant complaint was that next case.

Hobbs says that Bruning’s office is required under state law to take the cases that the commission believes are legitimate. In this case Bruning is breaking the law if he doesn’t file a lawsuit because the respondent, the owner of an apartment building, has asked the state to bring a lawsuit, she said.

But Bruning says state law allows him to decide which cases are taken to court, and he won’t spend taxpayer money on this case involving an illegal immigrant.

Bruning is refusing to follow state law because of his own policy on immigration, Hobbs said.  The immigration status is the only issue mentioned in an April 2 letter from the attorney general’s office to the NEOC.

“I believe this is an issue about immigration and not about the quality of our investigations,” she said.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Darren wrote on April 2, 2008 3:33 pm:
" If you want to see what incompetence looks like the photo that accompanies this story would be an excellent example. "

 David wrote on April 2, 2008 3:36 pm:
" Here goes John Bruening again, choosing which laws he wants to pursue. Federal laws do not allow an Attorney General to pick and chose at will which laws he wishes to pursue. I would like to remind citizens that Bruening and our illustrious Governer were behind the immigration bill that was killed by the legislature. Maybe Bruening needs to read up on the federal laws which state every person, citizen or not, has the legal right to pursue their case in court. I don't believe we have all the facts in this story, come on Bruening and do your job! "

 j83 wrote on April 2, 2008 3:55 pm:
" What would Jesus do? "

 IBN wrote on April 2, 2008 6:17 pm:
" Jon Bruning calls himself "The People's Lawyer" according to his web site. I don't get it. Which people? The people who are being discriminated against? The people in the NEOC that now have to worry if their agency is going to go away and so their jobs ? Way to go Mr. Bruning. I think you need to go to sensitivity training . . . or back to law school. "

 booing wrote on April 2, 2008 6:43 pm:
" Bruning is a joke. His ego no longer fits into his office. I'm ashamed he is our Attorney General. "

 David in Seward wrote on April 2, 2008 7:02 pm:
" I hope the legislature gives this much thought before making any decisions about the NEOC. I was discriminated against, and they found in my favor. Luckily, we settled so I did not have to deal with Jon Bruning. I think Bruning needs to look up the definition of incompetent, better yet, I will do it for him. Webster's Ninth defines it as "Not legally qualified; lacking the qualities needed for effective action or unable to function properly." Thank goodness he isn't running for Senate anymore. It's my observation that Bruning has his own agenda and if it does not directly benefit him, he is not interested. We are in the midst of a potential recall here in Seward due to incompetence, of two highly qualified individuals. Maybe the citizens of the State of Nebraska should look at this option as well. "

 fat boy wrote on April 2, 2008 7:13 pm:
" As a registered Republican, I am appalled by Jon Bruning's actions. Maybe we should impeach Bruning and elect Ernie Chambers as our next AG. "

 Sparky wrote on April 2, 2008 7:26 pm:
" fat boy, I think a better option would be to have Ms. Hobbs run for the AG spot during the next election cycle. Replace Bruning with someone that seems to have integrity and passion about the people they are elected to serve. "

 Buy a vowel Anne Hobbs, wrote on April 2, 2008 8:26 pm:
" Of course this shows incompetence on the part of the NEOC, or at least some of the people who work there. Just go to the NEOC website and review the criteria for a discrimination action, immigration status is not a protected basis. Note that the criteria to establish discrimination in housing is basically the same used to establish discrimination in employment. Therefore, if the NEOC has the opinion that a property owner doesn't have the right to refuse to rent to an illegal immigrant then it only goes to follow that NEOC must also believe that an employer does not have the right to refuse to employ an illegal immigrant. Wouldn't that leave employers in the position of being sued by the NEOC if they didn't employ the illegals and fined by the Feds if they did? "

 airedale wrote on April 2, 2008 8:32 pm:
" I have been waiting for Jon to make a move like this. His office has gotten its head handed to it over the past few weeks on some high profile cases. In order to make himself look big Jon has to dredge up something like this nonsense.
Anyone remember when Jon installed a 'Latino outreach coordinator' (or some position like that) back when he first took office? Now Jon seeks to cover his horrible legal track record by insinuating that if he actually prosecuted discrimination cases he would be helping illegal aliens.
This is lame Jon - even for you.
"

 a citizen wrote on April 2, 2008 8:57 pm:
" If the AG refuses to do his job he should be impeached. He, of all the state official's should 1) know state law and 2) abide by it. "

 Terry wrote on April 3, 2008 6:33 am:
" Pot calling the kettle black! "

 Tired of Whining wrote on April 3, 2008 7:31 am:
" Um... I'll admit, I'm confused here. When did laws of our states and country apply to illegal aliens. I thought that you had to be a member of an organization to be protected by its charter or constitution? Did I miss something since college? "

 Neo wrote on April 3, 2008 8:00 am:
" Everybody wants to string up employers who hire illegals even though there is no way to tell real SS cards from fraudulent ones but now we want to use taxpayer funds to ensure illegals can violate their leases and not get evicted. What a joke!

Why would government services be available to those that are in this country illegally? "

 Buddha wrote on April 3, 2008 8:22 am:
" I hope the Legislature responds to Mr. Bruning's call to abolish the NEOC with an impeachment proceeding. Mr. Bruning by law should have brought this lawsuit, and he is refusing to do so, therefore breaking the law he's required to uphold. This case apparently had nothing to do with immigration status, but with racial or nationality status. It's a housing discrimination suit that should have been brought to court. Mr. Bruning was also required to bring those 105 cases to court, and by only bringing 1 of them, he violated the law 104 times (at the least-who knows what the count is now!). That's at least 105 articles of impeachment that can be brought against Mr. Bumble, er, Bruning.

Also, the recall in Seward is because of Mr. Bruning and the county attorney's incompetent handling of the case. Sheriff Yocum is just an innocent party to the legal system screwing him over. Again, another reason for Mr. Bruning to be impeached. He is definitely not the people's lawyer, he's his own lawyer, acting at the behest of Governor Heineman. "

 No Benefits wrote on April 3, 2008 8:28 am:
" I thought that illegals were denied benefits. At least that was what those opposed to a recently proposed law said. The NEOC is state funded and tax payer supported so if illegals are benefiting it is against the law....or so we thought. "

 Jack Brass wrote on April 3, 2008 8:48 am:
" Methinks the young Bruning should consider a return to the legislative ranks where he could be making laws instead of refusing to follow them. A state attorney that believes in breaking the law on record. Thanks Mike Johanns for coming back and running! "

 ook wrote on April 3, 2008 9:27 am:
" Think you are missing a major point. The family was here illegally. A landlord had the right to see who is living in their apartment. My gosh, at times two people lease and ten move in and this is whether individuals are legal or illegal. Until the family is here LEGALLY, they have no concern to complain. There are many homeless families/children that wish they had a place to lay their heads and are here on a legal term. "

 kt wrote on April 3, 2008 9:46 am:
" the landlord in this case did something illegal regardless of the immigration status of the tenants, right? So you can break laws as long as it doesn't affect citizens? "

 Jeff wrote on April 3, 2008 10:07 am:
" I stand behind Bruning 100%. Did you not read where the husband didn't want the state to file a lawsuit against the landlord because he was afraid they would get in trouble. Trouble meaning they all get deported. These people have no businesss in that apartment, our city, state or country, period. You want to live here and work here? Great, I have no problem with that. Just do it legally, get a work visa, apply for citizenship like the millions before you who have. Those are the people who are getting cheated. "

 Peggy in Omaha wrote on April 3, 2008 10:27 am:
" I can't believe Mr. Bruning knows so little about the fair housing laws. The laws clearly are written to cover "people", not just citizens. There's lots of federal court cases out there making it clear that a person's immigration status is immaterial. And, if people are treated differently based on their national origin, then that is discrimination that's covered under the law. "

 Doug wrote on April 3, 2008 10:51 am:
" The case was not about their status in this country, but that they were Hispanic. Legal Hispanics are often ill-treated, and that was the crux of the case. Not their immigration status, but their apparent national origin/ethnic background. "

 Tired... wrote on April 3, 2008 11:14 am:
" The United States is not a club. Our laws and protections do not apply only to members. Anyone who steps foot on US soil is granted the same protections. If, as you suggest, our protections do not extend to outgroup members, does that mean that an American cannot be prosecuted for crimes against against an alien? I do not think so. Regardless of the parties involved, discrimination is discrimination, and is against not only our laws, but our sense of "morals" ( which are usually imposed on us by people like Attorney General Bruning). "

 I have to agree wrote on April 3, 2008 11:19 am:
" with Bruning on this one. If you read the story closely, the appartment was leased to a couple who then moved in additional people. The land lord had every right to evict them. It would be more interesting, but legally the same, if we knew how many people moved in. "

 Norm wrote on April 3, 2008 12:05 pm:
" Attorney General Bruning is wrong. Undocumented immigrants have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ’Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (emphasis mine). All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights. Among these are the right to equal protection of the law and the right to due process.
Other rights undocumented residents are entitled to include Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches of homes. The Supreme Court has held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Additionally, under federal law publicly funded hospitals must provide emergency medical services to all patients, regardless of their immigration status. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. Immigrants are also protected from workplace discrimination under state and federal laws.
Moreover, under federal law, a person may recover money damages for loss of property, personal injury or death where damages occurred as a result of the “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.
These are just a few of the rights that our Constitution and federal laws grant to all persons living in the U.S. These rights are intended to protect all U.S. residents from discrimination and arbitrary government action. These rights are especially critical in times where hatred based on race, color, and national origin is on the rise.
Whether the average citizen or Attorney General Bruning thinks folks should have these rights is one thing. But as a the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Nebraska, Attorney General Bruning has no choice but to ensure, enforce and protect the rights of all persons in the State of Nebraska. If he is unwilling to do so, he should resign or be removed from office.
"

 Post it! wrote on April 3, 2008 12:40 pm:
" discrimination based on race, (before you know if they legal or not) is still racial discrimination. I don't want those kind of people to get away with that. Bruning wants to disban a whole office over this? Why can't we just investigate the people working there and maybe replace them? Bruning is doesn't see the good that these types of organizations provide (i wonder why that is). I can't wait to elect him to another office so he can weild his power against more poor, helpless non-white souls. "

 rac wrote on April 3, 2008 12:52 pm:
" As a registered Republican I completely support Bruning on this. "

 Way to go Mr. Burning wrote on April 3, 2008 1:00 pm:
" WAY TO GO!! I am so pleased that you are doing the right thing where these illegals are concerned they are NOT entitled to spend the legal law abiding citizens tax money.You bleeding hearts need to go to the dictionary and look up the word illegal. Here is an idea for you why don't any of you offer up your place for these illegals to move into? And while your at it be sure to add them to your health insurance because tax payers are sick and tried of footing that bill for the law breakers too!! "

 Andrew wrote on April 3, 2008 1:57 pm:
" Wouldn't this be a hard case to prosecute? How can it be proven that the landlord evicted them because of race/ethnicity instead of some other factor (not having documentation). I guess I just don't see how this case could be won, therefore it would waste time and money. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong, but evicting someone because a lack of documentation (such as a driver's license or another state-issued id) should be a landlord's right. "

 Jen wrote on April 3, 2008 2:15 pm:
" Holy cow, for once Bruning got it RIGHT! Why should we pay for the state attorney to file a lawsuit on behalf of someone who, by being here, is breaking the law himself? Last time I checked, the prosecution is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws that are on the books. I don't think we should hold a law-abiding citizen culpable because he threw illegal aliens out of his property, not to mention the fact that there were residents NOT listed on the lease living in the apartment. That fact alone justifies eviction - the tenants did not abide by the terms set forth in the contract. Now what do you nice folks at the NEOC have to say about that? "

 Rights of Landlord/Stolen Identity wrote on April 3, 2008 2:47 pm:
" So the landlord is discriminating because he asked to see a driver's license and will not allow people not in the lease to reside in the dwelling, so he gets sued. Or, he leases the dwelling, evicts the tenants, goes to court to collect damages, and ends up being counter-sued by the person who's identity was stolen by the former tenants.

The next time a police officer asks to see my ID I will sue because they are discriminating against me by asking for the ID. "

 hmm? wrote on April 3, 2008 5:01 pm:
" Let's not get clouded, I think the question of legal status came up afterward right? If you remove that element, you have a landlord who asked to see the Driver's License of a Hispanic, (hypothetically, even an English-speaking, U.S. born Citizen.) The real question is, did the landlord know of other people living in apartments unauthorized who were not Hispanic, and if so how did he treat them? Did he ask to see the Driver's Licenses of any other tenants who are not Hispanic? The landlord has every right to verify the number of persons living in the unit, what is illegal is if he singled them out or treated them different in any way in relation to their national origin. "

 Capt Obvious wrote on April 3, 2008 6:08 pm:
" Has anyone checked as to the length of time it takes to become a U.S. citizen???
You can't jump off the boat, sign on the dotted line, & your in!!!
It worked out for your great grandparents, & now you can bicker about 'taxpayer dollars...blah blah...illegal is illegal'
Well news flash, unless you are a Native American, you are / were & your family belongs to a long line of IMMIGRANTS.
The process is broken, & instead of voting / running for office to make a change / difference, we get to listen to all the armchair quarterback politicians give us the definition of 'illegal'
Great, thanks for the opinion "

 Dave M. wrote on April 3, 2008 7:11 pm:
" Having worked in Property Management for many years I know more than BRUNING!! Whether anyone agrees with his Immigration philosophies, Bruning's agenda violates Fair Housing laws...haven't seen his job description, but it would seem the Attorney General would need some basic background and understanding of the LAW--and uphold it. IF the couple requested his office to refrain from action, that is one thing however to take a stab at an agency who apparently understands what he does not, is quite simply advertising his INCOMPETENCE. The truth is he does very little-and his personal vendetta against the Executive Director of the NEOC is way too apparent. I say a law student would be more capable and competent. "

 Leeta wrote on April 3, 2008 7:46 pm:
" While I have had some dealings with the NEOC I would love to hear from them on this--i fear Bruning's version may be tainted and lacking factusl information. As a property manager for a major real estate company, I've endured my share of complaints and investigations--all but one have resulted in our favor. But for several years I've always found their investigators to be knowledgeable--maybe a little too thorough--but def. not incompetent. Most of my education has come from HUD relative to housing laws and I believe Bruning is wrong as are those that support him. He is acting outside of the law and his words are contrary to the constitution. I don't agree with all laws on the books, but they are not discretionary. The man is embarassing and those that are supporting his idiosy might want to do some research to find out what it is you're supporting. It would be nice if the Attorney General made news without making Nebraskans look and sound stupid. I am considering inviting Jon to our next staff training session on housing discrimination--our maintenance men know more than Bruning! "

 Concerned Taxpayer wrote on April 3, 2008 9:08 pm:
" If Bruning's ego wasn't so big, and he so ambitious to play to the crowd instead of doing what's right he would have filed the lawsuit, it would have been made public that the renters are here illegally, ICE would have deported them, and if the landlord was breaking the law, the court would have punished him...and Jon would have done his job too!

I didn't elect this guy! "

 Pot, Kettle, Black wrote on April 4, 2008 12:39 pm:
" Is it time for a recall yet? "

 Bill wrote on April 4, 2008 1:05 pm:
" Exactly why isn't Brunning being impeached? Isn't his failure to bring this and many other cases to court in affect a crime in itself? Sounds like the man is guilty of conspiracy as well as massive ignorance. "

 Sue wrote on May 1, 2008 2:45 pm:
" I have rented homes in 3 states. I have always had to show my driver's license. I also have never been allowed to have more people living in my apartment then what the lease says. So how is this discrimination? From where I stand this is standard operating procedure I thought in all states. It's like the drivers licenses. I was stunned that illegals could get driver's licenses without documentation. That's not easy for citizens. When my son was 12 I got him a state ID. I had to show birth certificate and social security for him. When he turned 16 and went for this driver's license I turned in the state ID. Oh no, I had to go home and get birth certificate and social security card. The people in power sure do give all the illegals breaks. I'm wondering why any of us follow the law anymore. "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Politics

Also in Politics