The Compliance Division of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has perhaps the greatest impact on the elimination of discrimination throughout the State of Iowa. This division is responsible for the processing of all complaints that come under the jurisdiction of the Iowa Code, Chapter 601A. This law protects citizens in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit in the areas of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, physical/ mental disability, age and marital status.
Michael Bailey, State Compliance Director, William Murray, Federal Compliance Director, and Terrence Dolphin, Pattern and Practice Director, head their respective divisions in this area. For the present year, the compliance staff did not increase substantially due to the lack of funds. Only one additional permanent investigator was added. However, under the Governor's Internship Program, a part-time investigator was hired for a five-month period. Also, Federal money under Title IB was obtained for a three-month period with one investigator and three aides hired under this program. Temporary personnel hired under the Governor's Internship Program was Reginaldo Gale. Title IB personnel employed as aides were Delia Tallon, George Bell, and Trisha Rogers, while Peg Pabon was employed as an investigator.
With these additional permanent and part-time compliance personnel the total in the Compliance Division was 16 for the year ending June 30, 1975. (See organizational chart inside front cover for permanent state and federal positions.)
Outstanding work was accomplished by the Compliance Division. During this fiscal year, 754 cases were closed in comparison to 636 closed during the last 19-month reporting period. There were 1,038 cases carried over from the last fiscal year with 703 new cases received this year, making a total of 1,741. With 754 cases being closed, this left a total of 987 cases unresolved as of June 30, 1975.
Employment cases continue to be the largest area of discrimination. Eighty-eight percent of all cases received were in employment (617 out of 703). Of the 617 employment cases, the two largest groups were: sex, 193 cases, and race, 160 cases. The two smallest areas in employment were creed and color. (See chart and graph on pages 17-19 regarding cases received.)
Of the total cases closed, 34% (253) of these were No Probable Cause. Eighty-four cases were Probable Cause findings which were either successfully conciliated (63), are awaiting further attempts at conciliation (17), or have proceeded on to public hearing (4). (See chart on case closings on page 21.)
Since the last annual report, statistical data on cases conciliated are now categorized into two areas: satisfactorily adjusted (without written agreements) and successfully conciliated (with written agreements). During this past year, 100 cases were satisfactorily adjusted, and 63 were conciliated, for a total of 163 cases, in comparison to 175 cases during the previous 19-month reporting period.
The Complaint Intake is the first process of the Compliance Procedure. This is the formal filing of a complaint which must take place within 120 days of the alleged incident. A complaint may also be deferred to the Commission either by a local commission or from the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During fiscal year 1975, an average of 58 cases were received monthly. This intake number does not include the many calls on matters that do not fall under our jurisdiction.
The investigative phase is usually a long and sometimes complicated process dependent on the circumstances of the case. All investigators must be knowledgeable in all aspects of the facts pertaining to the alleged incident. Investigators write up their findings of facts and recommendations in order for a Commission decision to be made.
The four investigators charged with the responsibility of making these field visits during this fiscal year were: Angel Cardona, Vernell Warren, Arthur Galbreath, and Frank Thomas.
If no investigation needs to be made on a case and the case will be closed for lack of jurisdiction, withdrawal, or administrative closure, this process is completed by the Civil Rights Aides. These aides also accompany field representatives on field visits as part of their on-the-job training. The three aides were: Judy Waterstradt, Velva Colemon and Dan Myers.
Sample summaries of some of these investigations are as follows:
Employment - Mental Disability
Complainant alleged that he had not been allowed to return to work because of a mental disability.
Complainant took a leave of absence to enter the hospital for a neuropsychiatric checkup to determine the cause of migraine headaches. The Complainant returned to work and later was terminated for fighting with his supervisor. A union grievance was also filed. Respondent requested that the Complainant be evaluated at the Mental Health Center.
After the neuropsychiatric exam, it was determined that the Complainant had a mental disorder which left him incapable of working under the present conditions. Due to the complainant's past history, a determination of No Probable Cause was made.
Housing - Sex
Complainant alleged that he was being evicted because of his sex.
The investigation revealed that the complainant had moved into an apartment with his sister and brother-in-law. Shortly thereafter the sister and brother-in-law moved out and the complainant had two men move in with him. Respondent advised the Complainant that this would be on a probationary basis. Respondent does not rent to either single men or single women. Respondent warned complainant about the rules of no pets and the excessive noises within their apartment. Respondent gave written notice regarding the necessity for his removal. Due to the inability to prove discrimination based on sex, case was closed for No Probable Cause.
Credit - Marital Status
Complainant alleges she was denied the right to purchase a phone in her own name without her husband's permission. Also a deposit made in her name was refunded in her husband's name.
The investigation revealed that the Respondent has a policy of establishing service in either name depending upon whom the service representative determines will be receiving the most calls. Respondent states both names may be listed in the directory. Records proved that complainant did not request phone on the alleged date. Company requires a deadline date for change of bill service. Complainant's request was one day late to make the necessary adjustments for one month. The following month the changed bill was sent to the Complainant in her name. A finding of No Probable Cause was made.
Employment - Age
Complainant alleged that she was refused employment because of her age.
Complainant, a female 42 years of age, applied for a job for which all applicants were chosen from a register. Complainant applied on two occasions for which she was denied. On first occasion, the person chosen for the job was 22 years of age. Other persons interviewed were 24, 27, 32 and one between 40 and 65. Respondent had a 49-year old employee working for the agency. These applicants were not hired because they were not as qualified for the job. On second occasion, applicants were interviewed and on the basis of qualifications, a 23-year old was hired. In both cases, Complainant was not hired because she did not have as much experience working in a team situation, which was one of the requisites for the job. In view of this, the investigator made a determination of No Probable Cause.
The Compliance Division is also responsible for obtaining all suitable remedies for the Complainant if discrimination has been found. The State Compliance Director, Michael Bailey, and Federal Compliance Director, William M. Murray, negotiated on these Probable Cause findings. The monies received during the 1975 fiscal year totaled $204,478.97 of annualized benefits.
LABOR UNION PROJECT
The Labor Union project is a subdivision of the Compliance Division under the direction of Leo Karn. His responsibilities are in the areas of investigating and processing all complaints involving labor unions. The general directional trend has been that some of these individual charges may develop into the general category of pattern and practice cases.
Statistics for this project were not available for any other previous annual report. Approximately 35 cases were carried over from the previous year. Thirty-seven new cases were docketed against unions during the 1974-75 fiscal year. Seventeen of these cases were closed during this fiscal period. These union statistics are part of the total compliance statistics found in this annual report.
The Labor Union Project Director, who is an attorney, is also responsible for preparing cases for public hearing, conducting legal research, reviewing case jurisdictions, and addressing groups on labor relations work.
PATTERN AND PRACTICE PROJECT
Of prime importance in the Compliance Division is the Pattern and Practice Project under the direction of Terrence Dolphin. This project, federally funded, addresses itself to the elimination of the systemic discrimination as well as to the individual inequities. To the extent permitted by law, this project investigates the employment systems as a whole so as to determine the pattern and practice of discrimination and its causes, and seeks to deal with those causes.
Specifically, there are two ways the Commission has approached pattern and practice work. In 1968, when this project was originally established, the Commission relied on its statutory power to initiate complaints on its own behalf. These complaints were based primarily on statistical profiles of various employers which indicated a significant disparity between the number of minorities and women in the company's workforce over and against the proportion of available minorities in the community. Emphasis was placed primarily in the hiring and recruitment area. The culmination of those complaints was the signing of conciliation agreements for a two-year monitoring period. The information reported by these employers to the Commission included the number of people benefited by their improved systems and the dollar value of those benefits.
In this first systematic pattern and practice approach, as of July 1, 1974, 13 companies were in the investigative stage of the process. Five of these were closed after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's determination. On four cases, no pattern work was done because these were processed as individual complaints. The remaining four companies were pursued during fiscal year 1975.
In the conciliation stage, as of July 1, 1974, there was a total of 11 cases. Of these 11, nine were successfully conciliated, one was closed as satisfactorily adjusted and one remained in progress.
The signing of all conciliation agreements marks the beginning of a series of periodic reports from Respondents. This fiscal year was the first year that this division developed a follow-up monitoring system. Fifteen companies were in this evaluation system.
The statistics show that prior to conciliation for all companies monitored, the average percentage of minorities in their workforce was 2.1%. After conciliation, the average percentage of minorities in their workforce was 4.8%, which shows an increase of 2.7%. In terms of new hires, these same companies increased their rate of hiring minorities by 19.5%. During this same period, the benefits derived from these 11 companies that were monitored had an annualized monetary total of $143,483.40.
The second way in which the Commission has approached pattern and practice investigations is with individual complaints. The Commission makes every effort to investigate the person's complaint. If there is a need to look at the entire employment system, this data is analyzed with a pattern and practice project in mind. If such a pattern emerges, remedies would be sought for the entire affected group.
At the beginning of this fiscal year, 50 individual complaints remained open. An additional 30 complaints were received, bringing the total to 80 individual complaints. By June 30, 1975, 24 of these cases were closed. (All of these individual statistics are included in the compliance charts on pages 17-19.)