Shannon Bouchard

Members of the House Judiciary Committee: My name is Shannon Bouchard, and I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to the proposed legislation creating RSA 354-A:16-a and 354-A:16-b relative to disability discrimination. Let me begin by stating clearly: discrimination against individuals with disabilities is unacceptable, and strong legal protections must remain in place. Federal law already provides comprehensive safeguards through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, enforcement mechanisms modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are already available under existing frameworks. The question before the Committee is not whether disability discrimination should be prohibited—it already is—but whether this bill meaningfully improves protections or instead creates redundancy, regulatory expansion, and increased litigation risk without demonstrated need. 1. Duplication of Existing Federal Law Entities receiving federal funds are already subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. This proposal largely mirrors federal standards and incorporates them by reference. The bill does not identify a gap in existing protections or provide evidence that current enforcement mechanisms are failing New Hampshire residents. Before establishing a parallel state enforcement structure, the Legislature should determine whether there is a documented deficiency in current law. Absent such evidence, this legislation appears duplicative rather than corrective. 2. Expanded Litigation Exposure Although the bill excludes compensatory damages, it authorizes civil actions, injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, appeals, and attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees provisions, even without damages, create substantial leverage in litigation and can pressure settlements regardless of the merits of a claim. For municipalities, school districts, small providers, and nonprofit organizations, defense costs alone can be significant. These expenses ultimately fall on taxpayers, ratepayers, or service recipients. 3. Broad and Ambiguous Scope The bill defines “program or activity” expansively, potentially encompassing entire organizations or facilities if any portion receives state or federal assistance. This breadth may extend compliance obligations far beyond the specific funded activity. While the bill includes language allowing small providers flexibility regarding structural alterations, it leaves key terms open to interpretation. Ambiguity invites litigation and regulatory uncertainty, particularly for smaller organizations without in-house counsel or compliance departments. 4. Open-Ended Regulatory Authority The legislation directs agency heads to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the section. Without clearer statutory parameters, this represents a broad delegation of rulemaking authority. Compliance obligations could evolve through administrative rulemaking rather than legislative action, creating uncertainty for regulated entities. 5. Fiscal and Administrative Impact Layering state-level enforcement over existing federal frameworks increases administrative complexity. Public institutions—including school systems and higher education entities—would need to evaluate policies, update procedures, and potentially defend against new state-level claims in addition to federal processes. At a time when state and local resources are limited, expanding parallel enforcement structures should be carefully justified. Conclusion New Hampshire must remain committed to protecting individuals with disabilities. However, sound policy requires clarity of purpose, demonstrated need, and careful consideration of fiscal and regulatory consequences. Because this bill largely duplicates existing federal protections while expanding litigation exposure and regulatory uncertainty, I respectfully urge the Committee to find this bill Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Shannon Bouchard