How did the Commission accomplish its work in FY89?
The Commission's FY 89 total budget was $1,458,444, with funds coming from the Iowa general fund, as appropriated by the Legislature, and from contracts with federal agencies.
Source of Funds
From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Commission received a total of $420,458 under its contract for the investigation of cross-filed employment complaints.
The Commission received a total of $140,968 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for three different programs. The Type I Grant of $52,613 was for the investigation of cross-filed housing complaints. Type II Grant funds of $80,877 were expended for the Fair Housing Awareness Project, which is described on page14. Type II Grant funds of $10,066 were expended towards the development of a computer expert system, as described on page 16.
There was a 7.9% increase in the FY 89 budget over the previous year's budget. This increase made it possible for the Commission to hire additional staff and to purchase much needed office equipment and increased computer capability.
What did the Commission accomplish in FY 89?
The enforcement powers of the Commission are embodied in the processing of individual complaints alleging discrimination. The Commission is empowered under Iowa Code, Section 601A.5(2), "(t)o receive, investigate, and finally determine the merits of complaints alleging unfair or discriminatory practices ......"
The Compliance Division experienced a year of growth and accomplishment in complaint processing. A drop in the number of new complaints filed, an increase in the number of cases closed during Administrative Review, and completion of more determinations than the number of new complaints filed, all operated to allow the Commission to keep abreast of the flow of complaints and to decrease the number of complaints in the inventory.
A detailed flowchart of the entire case processing system is shown on pages 24 and 25 . In brief, the steps can be summed up as follows:
Intake: the receiving and docketing of jurisdictional complaints.
Administrative Review: review of information submitted by Complainant and Respondent to determine if further investigation is warranted.
Investigation: the investigator interviews Complainant, Respondent and witnesses; gathers and analyzes relevant documents; writes a case summary and makes a recommended finding.
Review by Internal Administrative Law Judge, who issues a finding of Probable Cause or No Probable Cause.
Conciliation, following a Probable Cause finding, to resolve the complaint with appropriate remedies for the Complainant and the Commission.
Public Hearing and Final Commission Decision, if case is determined to be litigation worthy.
Intake Update--Case processing changes made during FY 89 include a reorganized intake unit. The unit consists of three intake officers and a lead worker who handle all inquiries about filing a complaint. The intake officers rotate days being assigned to respond to telephone inquiries, and they also receive in-person visitors and respond to written inquiries.
The intake officers determine whether an individual is alleging a jurisdictional situation, and whether the person can allege a prima facie case of discrimination. If the situation meets these requirements, then an appointment for an in-depth telephone interview with the person is made, to take place within the next day or two. During that appointment the intake officer assists the individual in getting the complaint drafted. The complaint is then mailed to the person to have it signed, notarized and returned to our office
This streamlined system has resulted in a shorter waiting time for individuals who need an appointment, and therefore, in a reduced time to begin the actual processing of the complaint. The system has also resulted in a drop in the number of complaints filed, because the intake unit is not drafting complaints for situations that are clearly not jurisdictional.
1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 |
1,672 | 1,515 | 1,474 | 1,198 |
As in previous years, employment complaints account for the largest number of complaints filed.
AREA | # | % |
Employment | 1,047 | 80.6 |
Retaliation | 86 | 6.6 |
Public Accommodation | 80 | 6.2 |
Housing | 74 | 5.7 |
Education | 6 | <1 |
Credit | 5 | <1 |
Total | 1,299 |
Sex, race, disability and age continue to be the most frequently alleged bases for complaints, as shown in the following table.
BASIS | # | % |
Sex | 378 | 26.2 |
Race | 353 | 24.5 |
Age | 248 | 17.2 |
Physical Disability | 186 | 12.9 |
Retaliation | 103 | 7.1 |
National Origin | 69 | 4.8 |
Perceived Physical Disability | 53 | 3.7 |
Mental Disability | 15 | 1.0 |
Religion | 11 | <1 |
Sex (Pregnancy) | 10 | <1 |
Familial Status | 5 | <1 |
Perceived Mental Disability | 4 | <1 |
Color | 4 | <1 |
CAUSE OF ACTION | # | % |
Benefits | 49 | 2.5 |
Constructive Discharge | 68 | 3.5 |
Demotion | 43 | 2.2 |
Discharge | 500 | 25.7 (1) |
Equal Pay | 41 | 2.2 |
Eviction | 31 | 1.6 |
Failure to Accommodate | 50 | 2.6 |
Failure to Hire | 145 | 7.5 (4) |
Failure to Serve | 27 | 1.4 |
General Harassment | 175 | 9.0 (3) |
General Treatment | 39 | 2.0 |
Layoff | 30 | 1.5 |
Pregnancy | 21 | 1.1 |
Probation | 17 | 8.7 (sic) |
Promotion | 66 | 3.4 |
Recall | 9 | <1 |
Reduction in Hours | 16 | <1 |
Reduction in Pay | 16 | <1 |
Refuse to Rent | 20 | 1.0 |
Reprimand | 53 | 2.7 |
Retaliation | 58 | 3.0 |
Sexual Harassment | 81 | 4.2 (5) |
Suspension | 44 | 2.3 |
Terms and Conditions | 181 | 9.3 (2) |
Training | 21 | 1.1 |
Unequal Service | 69 | 3.5 |
Other | 22 | 1.1 |
() Rank
As shown in the preceding chart, "discharge" or employment termination continued to be the most frequently alleged cause of action during FY 89.
Respondent | # | % |
Service Private Employer | 681 | 58.0 |
Governmental Unit | 140 | 12.0 |
Real Estate Agent | 71 | 6.1 |
Retailer/Wholesaler | 66 | 5.6 |
Educational Institution | 56 | 4.9 |
Manufacturing Private Employer | 45 | 3.8 |
Owners | 38 | 3.2 |
Credit Institutions | 14 | 1.2 |
Manager | 13 | 1.2 |
Labor Organization | 12 | 1.0 |
Proprietor | 4 | <1 |
Creditor | 2 | <1 |
The most frequently named respondent type continued to be service private employers. However, last year's second ranked respondent, manufacturing private employer, dropped to sixth place in FY 89. This would correspond to the changes in Iowa's economic conditions, with an increase in service jobs and a decrease in manufacturing jobs.
Administrative Review: During FY 89, a total of 563 cases were closed after administrative review. Information submitted by all parties following the filing of the complaint is reviewed by a team of experienced workers. The review determines if further investigation is warranted; that is, is there cause to believe that the Complainant may prevail. If not, the Complainant is notified of the intended administrative closure. The Complainant has an opportunity to submit additional information and request reconsideration, or to request a right-to-sue letter.
If further investigation is warranted, the case will be assigned to the appropriate investigative unit. The investigator, a neutral fact-finder, will gather all available evidence, write a summary, and make a recommended finding. The entire case file will be reviewed by an internal Administrative Law Judge, who will issue the letter of finding.
Investigation Update--Changes were also made in the format of the investigative units. The extended case unit was created to deal with complaints filed prior to July 1, 1987. At the end of FY 89, there were 328 cases assigned to this unit, with a goal of completing action on all these cases by December 1990. This unit is using innovative ideas such as flex time, grouping cases by Respondent or by geographic area, and working as a team, not only to discuss and map investigative strategy, but to actually complete the investigation.
Other investigative units are specializing in age discrimination in employment complaints, housing complaints, and the more recently-filed complaints.
Determination | # | % |
Administrative Closure | 298 | 20.3 |
Administrative Closure RTS* | 149 | 10.1 |
Administrative Closure PS** | 563 | 38.3 |
No Probable Cause | 164 | 11.2 |
Probable Cause | 31 | 2.1 |
No Jurisdiction | 3 | <1 |
No Probable Cause/ No Jurisdiction | 4 | <1 |
Probable Cause/No Probable Cause | 2 | <1 |
Withdrawn | 126 | 8.6 |
Withdrawn/Satisfactorily Adjusted | 13 | <1 |
Satisfactorily Adjusted | 75 | 5.1 |
Successfully Conciliated | 26 | 1.8 |
Hearing Officer Dismissal | 0 | 0 |
Public Hearing | 9 | <1 |
Closure after Hearing | 7 | <1 |
Total Determinations | 1,470 |
Annualized Benefits: monies collected from Respondents and paid to Complainants as a result of a settlement or final Commission decision are called annualized benefits. In FY 89, these benefits totaled $395,598.68.
During FY 89, there were nine public hearings held. These were presided over by an external administrative law judge, with the Commission being represented by the two assistant attorneys general assigned to the agency. A digest of cases for which final decisions were rendered by the Commission members begins on page 26.
Recognition for a Job Well Done: During the annual conference for fair housing enforcement agencies, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Iowa Civil Rights Commission received an award, "Outstanding Fair Housing Assistance Program Agency in Region VII." The award was presented June 1, 1989 in Chicago.