Three years after county, city discrimination ordinances, no complaint has led to finding, penalty

by VICTORIA A. IFATUSIN

Buncombe County and the City of Asheville took a significant step toward dismantling discrimination in 2021 by enacting local laws prohibiting it in private employment and public commerce.

The ordinances, unanimously passed by both governmental bodies, set up a system for filing and investigating complaints alleging discrimination and penalizing violators, and mirrored efforts that have been adopted by about two dozen cities and counties in North Carolina.

But nearly three years later, none of the 55 complaints that have been filed to the county and city have resulted in a discrimination finding, according to public documents obtained by Asheville Watchdog.

The overwhelming majority — 47 — were dropped because of a lack of follow-up by the complainants or because they were outside the county and city’s jurisdiction. In four cases, no discrimination was found, and two cases are pending. One did not have enough specific information and one was withdrawn by the complainant.

Although officials say the ordinances have not been a failure, advocates say they’ve been disappointed by the lack of results.

Allison Scott, a transgender woman and director of impact and innovation for the Campaign for Southern Equality, advocated for both ordinances and said she was surprised to learn that none of the complaints have resulted in a discrimination finding.

“I’m just personally very worried that we’ve had 55 complaints and zero were found to have merit,” she said, “I know some of those people didn’t respond, but of the ones that did, I just find that hard to believe.”

Peyton Daisy O’Conner, a transgender woman who was previously the county’s parks and recreation director and a former board member of Asheville City Schools, echoed her criticism.

“I can say that I’ve been wholeheartedly disappointed by the way that the nondiscrimination ordinance has been handled since its passage,” said O’Conner.

Noreal Armstrong, Buncombe County’s chief equity and human rights officer, defended the county ordinance.

“The process [is] young in its inception and having a place where people can report incidents is positive for the community,” said Armstrong.

County Commissioner Al Whitesides, who voted for the county’s ordinance, said the results haven’t surprised him because some complaints are “unreal” and “don’t even apply to Buncombe County.”

Whitesides maintains that the ordinance remains worthwhile.

“The program needs to be there to let people know that if they do have complaints, they can use it,” he said. “To take it away would seem like that’s no longer an emphasis of ours.”

The Watchdog reached out to Commissioner Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, a primary proponent of the county ordinance, for comment. She responded that she was unavailable for comment because she is on medical leave.

The City of Asheville’s Office of Equity and Inclusion “remains committed to addressing discrimination and will continue to use available tools such as executing the process outlined in the ordinance,” said spokesperson Kim Miller in an emailed response to The Watchdog’s questions.

The office does not plan to make any changes to the complaint system, Miller said.

Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer said that “a platform that allows for reporting of possible discrimination is worthwhile.”

“It’s a major step in promoting and supporting Council’s strategic priority for an equitable and diverse community,” she said.

100 days to resolve complaints

Both the city and county ordinances make it illegal for employers and business owners to discriminate based on any “difference in treatment based on race, natural hair or hairstyles, ethnicity, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin or ancestry, marital or familial status, pregnancy, veteran status, religious belief or non-belief, age, or disability” in a private workplace or public accommodation.

The ordinances require investigators to process complaints within 100 days. During that time, both parties in the dispute can try to settle the issue themselves. If investigators determine there has been discrimination, they try to achieve reconciliation between the parties. If that fails, investigators can issue a $100 fine.

The 55 complaints to the county and city involve government agencies, retail stores, public housing, public transportation, schools, medical facilities and restaurants. Twenty involved allegations of racial discrimination. Fourteen alleged discrimination against people with disabilities and 12 involved accusations of gender or sex discrimination.

While North Carolina is among five states that lack a statewide law that protects individuals against discrimination, 24 municipalities in the state had adopted a nondiscrimination ordinance as of December 2023, according to a recent survey conducted by the University of North Carolina’s law school.

Buncombe was the seventh municipality in the state to enact a nondiscrimination ordinance and did so as part of its 2025 Strategic Plan and Racial Equity Action Plan (REAP). Asheville became the eighth when it followed seven days later with a nearly identical ordinance.

The adoption of such ordinances came after the state repealed HB 142, which banned local governments from creating their own nondiscrimination ordinances in 2020 as a compromise following the dissolution of HB 2. That law mandated that people must use public restrooms corresponding to their biological gender. HB 2 generated a national backlash, including boycotts and the cancellations of entertainment events in the state.

In spring 2021, both the county and the city considered anti-discrimination ordinances. Advocates, many from the LGBTQ community, called for their passage.

“This ordinance will save lives,” Asheville counselor Luce Beagle said to council members before their vote, the Asheville Citizen-Times reported.

Tina Madison White, former executive director of Blue Ridge Pride Center, said that she advocated for the ordinance because she believes a person’s differences should not define their opportunities in life.

“The nondiscrimination ordinance is important both to the people who are discriminated against and I think what we often overlook, for the rest of the community,” White told The Watchdog.

But Micheal Woods, CEO of the Western Carolina Rescue Ministries, said the county ordinance was ineffective and was enacted only as an empty gesture for publicity. The lack of results did not surprise him.

Woods opposed the measure at the time, because elected officials told him that under the ordinance, his organization would be required to scrap its policy of using the gender listed on state-issued identification to assign people seeking shelter to male or female sleeping quarters.

“The reason that we have that in place has nothing to do with being discriminatory to anyone based on their race or gender or anything from that standpoint; it’s a safety issue for us,” he said.

Kristie Sluder, a local social worker and a Republican candidate for N.C. Senate District 49, also opposed the county ordinance.

The ordinance “falsely assumed and insinuated that the good people of Buncombe County were biased and prone to discrimination,” she said. “In fact we are not.”

Sluder said that a survey conducted with the Better Business Bureau before the ordinance’s passing showed that Asheville businesses did not have an issue with the ordinance, “because they don’t discriminate in the first place and would be opposed to anyone who did.”

‘Toothless’ ordinances

Despite supporting the ordinances, some advocates were concerned that they contained potential pitfalls, primarily the $100 penalty, which many considered negligible.

White, the former Blue Ridge Pride Center executive director, said that she thought the ordinances lacked “sharp teeth.”

“I thought it did a good job of stating our values,” she said. “It did not strike me that it created frightening penalties for the businesses or a separate board that they had to live in fear of.”

Scott, the Campaign for Southern Equality official, said that she was disappointed that the penalty was “not much more than, honestly, parking infraction fines.”

“People shopping for their groceries don’t come out spending less than two or three hundred dollars,” she said. “A $100 fine seems pretty toothless.”

Opponents, such as Woods, expressed a similar sentiment, saying that the ordinance had “zero teeth.”

Other municipalities such as Greensboro, Hillsborough, and Carrboro issue up to a $500 penalty. Greensboro and Orange County authorize punitive and compensatory damages, and give complainants the right to sue after exhausting all administrative remedies.

Scott also said that investigators should come from outside city and county government.

“People don’t feel like the institutions that have historically caused a lot of harm are now all of a sudden capable of providing a system that can rectify harm,” she said.

She said a third-party investigative unit would be beneficial in providing “layers of transparency” and “good faith.”

Charlotte, which has had a similar ordinance to Buncombe and Asheville since October 2021, has received a total of 28 nondiscrimination ordinance inquiries, said Luis Matta, nondiscrimination division supervisor and communications specialist for the city. Complainants have received $47,900 in monetary relief. In one case, a complainant received $15,000.

Matta supervises the team that investigates complaints. If after determining discrimination occurred and attempts at reconciliation fail, investigators share their findings with a panel consisting of five volunteers from the city’s Community Relations Committee, which consists of 45 volunteers appointed by city and county officials. The volunteers receive training and ultimately decide on the resolution of cases, Matta said.

In addition to the lack of major penalties, advocates point to logistical issues that make the Asheville and Buncombe ordinances ineffective.

O’Conner, the former ACS board member, said that when she filed a complaint, the county lost it twice due to technical issues with its submission process. She was told that she had to file it in a different format, she said.

“I can only imagine that others have encountered similarly unnecessary hurdles,” she said.

A reason why complainants may not respond to follow-ups from the county’s equity and human rights office is due to the requirement for complainants to fill out a second form with the same information. The only difference is the second form requires a signature.

“We have been working to simplify the process, so complainants do not have to fill out the form a second time to provide a signature,” Armstrong said. “I believe that change can have a positive impact on the process.”

‘We don’t engage enough in discussion’

White says that while she argued for the ordinance because it is important and should be available, she wasn’t expecting much change from it, mainly because law helps “move uncivil behavior underground” but doesn’t cure it nor “teach civil values.”

“I worry that in our society, liberals and conservatives resort too quickly to the courts, and I’m not saying they’re wrong to do it,” she said. “But I do think one of the outcomes is we don’t engage enough in discussion about not what’s my right, but what’s the right thing to do.”

Officials should direct their attention to more pressing issues, Woods said, such as violence that occurs in lower income communities.

Amy Upham, the current Blue Ridge Pride Center executive director, said there’s a need for better training on how to address discrimination complaints. She also said that people who look like the complainants need to be the ones investigating them.

“I don’t know who’s on there, but they need to make sure that if they are reviewing a complaint about BIPOC folks, that it’s BIPOC folks reviewing that primarily,” Upham said. “And if it’s queer folks, that it’s queer folks reviewing that primarily.”

Scott of the Campaign for Southern Equality says that she would encourage elected officials to revisit the ordinances. “It’s been a while now and I believe it’s necessary to revisit ordinances. We should assess their effectiveness, identify their successes and failures, and pinpoint where improvements are needed,” she said.

Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Victoria A. Ifatusin joined us through a 12-month fellowship as part of the prestigious Scripps Howard Fund’s Roy W. Howard Fellowship program. You can reach her via email at vifatusin@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service please visit avlwatchdog.org/donate.