Prohibiting mask, vaccine and testing discrimination.
Summary
HB0096 would prohibit discrimination by entities that receive state or federal subsidies based on a person’s COVID-19 vaccination or booster status, refusal to wear a face covering for COVID-19 purposes, or refusal to submit to COVID-19 medical testing. It also bars those entities from publishing or advertising that such requirements are conditions for receiving public-facing services, goods, facilities, advantages, or privileges.
The bill defines key terms broadly, including COVID-19, face covering, vaccination, vaccine, and several forms of COVID-19 testing. It creates a private civil cause of action for an aggrieved person, allowing recovery of up to $5,000 per violation, and takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to Wyoming statutes, W.S. 35-4-140, creating a statewide anti-discrimination rule tied specifically to COVID-19-related vaccination, masking, and testing status. It would affect subsidized public-facing entities, including those receiving state or federal funds, by limiting their ability to impose or advertise such conditions for access to services or facilities. It also gives affected individuals a direct civil remedy, which could expose covered entities to litigation and monetary liability.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately favorable support in the House, where it passed 45-16 after an amendment failed. However, the Senate Labor Committee later rejected it on a 2-3 vote, indicating significant resistance in the upper chamber. Overall, the voting history suggests support among many House members but less consensus in the Senate.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether subsidized entities should be allowed to require masks, vaccination, or COVID-19 testing as a condition of access or service. Supporters likely viewed the bill as protecting personal choice and preventing discrimination, while opponents likely saw it as restricting public health measures and the discretion of service providers. The failed amendment and the Senate committee defeat suggest disagreement over the scope of the restrictions and the appropriateness of a private right of action with statutory damages.