GENERAL CASELOAD STATISTICS) 1970

The 1970 reporting year evidenced by far the largest caseload in the Commission's five-and-a-half year history, with the filing of 169 complaints and 77 file matters. The largest previous caseload was in 1969, when 69 complaints and 93 file matters were filed. Another indication of the ever-increasing caseload is the fact that the total of 169 complaints filed in 1970 alone was greater than the total of 140 complaints filed in the first four-and-a-half years combined (July, 1965 - November, 1969).

	TOTAL CASELOAD	COMPLAINTS	FILE MATTERS
Dec 1969 - Nov. 1970	246	169	77
Dec. 1968 - Nov. 1969	162	69	93
Dec. 1967 - Nov. 1968	122	33	89
Dec. 1966 - Nov. 1967	41	17	24
Dec. 1965 - Nov. 1966	39	19	20
July 1965 - Nov. 1965	10	2	8
TOTAL	620	309	311

Thirty-two (32) of the 169 complaints were filed on Commission charges (23 in employment, 1 in housing, and 8 in public accommodations). The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission deferred 22 employment cases to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation and settlement as required in the U. S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fifteen (15) of the Commission charges in employment resulted from E.E.O.C. deferrals.

The Commission processed a total of 197 complaints during the 1970 reporting year. Of these 197 complaints, 169 were filed in 1970 while the other 28 were filed before 1970 but unresolved on November 30, 1969 (the closing date of the 1969 reporting year). One hundred one (101) of the 197 complaints were resolved during 1970, with the other 96 still under investigation at the close of this reporting period. The 96 unresolved complaints on November 30, 1970 (thus carrying over into the 1971 reporting year) include 64 in employment, 14 in housing, 15 in public accommodations, and 3 in aiding & abetting. These do not include 25 unresolved Commission charges under the EEOC-funded affirmative action employment project.

The 101 complaints resolved in 1970 alone almost equaled the total of 108 complaints resolved in the Commission's previous four-and-a-half years combined (July 1968 - November 1969)!

Of the 101 complaints resolved in 1970, discrimination was found in 42 -- with 7 public hearings, 25 conciliations and 10 administrative closings. Thus, almost 60 per cent of the complaints were resolved without a finding of discrimination -- 43 wore dismissed on the merits as having no probable cause that discrimination occurred, while 5 were withdrawn subsequently by the complainants and 11 were dismissed by the Commission for lack of jurisdiction (either because of subject matter or time limitations on filing).

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Seven of the 101 complaints went the full route of administrative remedy, resulting in public hearings. In one of these hearings, the Commission found discrimination against a labor union in Des Moines and ordered the union to accept a black applicant for membership as well as make whole a white contractor who suffered economic losses as a result of the discrimination against blacks. The Commission's decision and order (slightly modified) was upheld by the Polk County District Court, and the union has appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. This case is spelled out in detail below (under CASE STUDIES).

Three other public hearings in employment cases were held in 1970, but the Commission had not rendered decisions by the close of this reporting year. Two of them involved Mexican Americans, with a male being passed over for promotion in a manufacturing company in Belmond and a female being fired by a manufacturing company in Pleasant Valley. The other hearing involved three black females who were not hired by a manufacturing company in Waterloo.

The Commission found discrimination and issued cease-and- desist orders in two hearings in housing cases. One involved an individual homeowner's refusal to rent a house in Waverly to a mixed couple (black male and white female). The other involved a complaint by a mixed couple (black male and white female) who were denied a lot in a mobile home court near Iowa City and another complaint by a white male who wished to sell his mobile home to the mixed couple in question. The latter case has been appealed to the Johnson County District Court on a petition for review by the respondent. Both cases are treated in greater detail below (under CASE STUDIES).

The statistics for the 1970 reporting year clearly demonstrate that the Iowa Civil Rights Commission serves victims of discrimination other than Negroes. An 1970, 96 of the 169 complaints (or less than 60 per cent) involved alleged discrimination against blacks. However, only 87 of these 96 complaints involved only blacks -- 6 complaints involved racially mixed (black and white) parties (5 married couples and a pair of female roommates), while 3 complaints involved alleged discriminatory practices against both blacks and Mexican-Americans. Three (3) black complainants charged sex discrimination.

The following table gives an in-depth jurisdictional profile of the Commission's regular caseload in 1970. As noted above, 87 of the sole complainants were black, while blacks were co-complainants (with whites) in an additional 9 complaints. American Indians filed 6 complaints, with the other 67 filed by whites solely. Of these 67 filed by whites, 30 were on the basis of sex discrimination., 8 because of race,. 3 on creed, 2 on religion, and 3 because of factors found upon investigation to not come under the Commission's jurisdiction. The other 21 were filed by whites solely on the basis of national origin -- including 18 by Mexican-Americans. (An additional 3 complaints involved Mexican-Americans and blacks as co- complainants).

COLOR Discrimination -- 1

1=Dark complexion (black)

CREED Discrimination -- 3

3=Appearance: long hair (white)

NATIONAL ORIGIN Discrimination -- 21 (all white)

1=Anglo-Saxon

1=German

l=Irish

2=Italian

15=Mexican

1=Syrian

NATIONAL ORIGIN & RACE Discrimination -- 3

3=Mexicans & Blacks (both issues in these cases)

RACE Discrimination -- 103

83=Blacks

6=Mixed (blacks & whites)

a. 5=married couples

b. 1=female roommates

8=Whites

6=Indians

RELIGION Discrimination -- 2

2=7th-Day Adventists (white)

SEX Discrimination -- 33

7=Male (1=black, 6=white)

26 Female (2=black, 24=white)

OTHER Discrimination: (No Jurisdiction) -- 3

1=Health (white)

1=Labor law question (white)

1=Status (on welfare) (white)

*Includes those on whose behalf a Commission charge was filed.

The following table presents the specific issues in the 169 complaints, including the basis of discrimination. For example, 5 of the 169 complaints involved alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of job assignment. Two of these 5 complaints alleged race discrimination, while the other three individually alleged discrimination on the basis of color, national origin, or sex.

It will be noted that the key issue in employment discrimination was firing, with 23 of the 32 complaints being on the basis of race. On the other hand, 13 of the 23 complaints because of failure to hire were on the basis of sex discrimination (with 10 of the 13 involving females).

A. Assignment -- 5

Color = 1
(1=Black)

National Origin = 1
(1=Mexican)

Race = 2
(2=Blacks)

Sex=l
(1=Female)

B. Contractor (Independent) -- 2

Race = 2
(2=Black)

C. Demotion -- 3

Race = 1
(1=Black)

Sex = 2
(2-Female)

D. Firing -- 32

Creed = 1

National Origin = 5
(1=Anglo-Saxon)
(1=Irish)
(3=Mexican)

Race = 23
(19=Black)
(2=Indian)
(2=White)

Religion = 1

Sex = 1
(1=Female)

Other =1

E. Harassment -- 11

National Origin = 3
(1=German)
(1=Italian)
(1=Mexican)

Race = 5
(3=Black)
(2=White)

Sex = 2
(2=Female)

Other = 1

F. Hiring -- 23

National Origin = 1
(1=Mexican)

Race = 8
(8=Black)

Religion = 1

Sex = 13
(3=Male)

(10=Female)

G. Job Order to Employment Service

Sex = 2
(1=Female)

(1=Male)

H. Pay -- 3

Sex 3
(3=Female)

I. Promotion -- 6

National Origin = 3
(1=Italian)

(2=Mexican)

Race = 2
(2=Black)

Sex = 1
(1=Female)

J. Recommendation for future employers -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

K. Seniority -- 3

Race = 2
(2=Black)

Sex = 1
(1=Female)

L. Suspension --

Race = 1
(1=Black)

M. Tests -- 3

National Origin = 1
(1=Mexican)

Race = 2
(2=Black)

N. Transfer to Another City -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Black)

O. Underutilization -- 4

National Origin = 1
(1=Mexican)

Race & National Origin = 3
(3=Blacks & Mexicans)

 

P. Unions -- Expulsion from Apprenticeship -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

Q. Unions -- Grievance Representation -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

R. Unions -- Treatment (Harassment) -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

The key issue in the 27 housing cases was the rental of apartments, with all 10 of these cases being on the basis of race. Another key issue was allegedly discriminatory evictions from: apartments (5), a house, and a trailer court.

A. Apartment: Eviction -- 5

National Origin = 1
(1=Syrians)

Race = 4
(2=Black couple)
(1=Whites with black guests)
(1=Indian couple)

B. Apartment: -- Rental 10

Race = 10

(8=Black couples)

(2=Mixed couples)

(black male, white female)

C. House: Eviction -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Black couple)

D. House: Rental -- 6

Creed = 1
National Origin = 2
(2=Mexicans)
Race = 3
(1=Black couple)
(1=Mixed couple)
(black male & white female)
(1=Black & white female roommates)

E. House: Sale -- 1

Race = 1
("Choose Your Neighbor" cards used by realty company)

F. Trailer Court: Eviction -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Mixed couple)
(black male & white female)

G. Trailer Court: Rental 2

Race = 2
(1=Mixed couple)
(black male & white female)
(1=black male)

 

H. Trailer: Sale -- 1

Race = 1

(1=White attempting to sell to mixed couple)

The 36 complaints in public accommodations involved a wide variety of issues, with the major one being treatment of minorities by city or county police.

A. Ballroom: Rental Mixups -- 1

National Origin = 1

(1=Mexican)

B. Bank: Denial of Loan -- 1

Sex = 1

(1=Female)

C. Chamber of Commerce: Promotional Schemes -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Blacks not allowed to participate)

D. Colleges or Universities:Suspension -2

Race = 2

(2=Black)

E. County Probation Officer: Harassment = 1

Race = 1

(white mother with black children)

F. Department Stores: Charge Accounts -- 2

Sex = 2

(2=Female)

G. Insurance Co.: Coverage -- 1

Sex = 1

(1=Female)

H. Judge (District Court): Sentence -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Indian)

I. Motel: Rental -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Black)

 

J. Motel: Vacate -- 1

Race = 1
(1=White with black employees rooming next to him)

K. Police (City or County): Treatment -- 10

National Origin = 2
(2=Mexican)

Race = 8
(7=Black)
(1=Indian)

 

L. Restaurant: Harassment -- I

Race = 1
(1=Black)

 

M. School: Suspension = 1

Creed = 1

N. Schools: Treatment -- 3

Race = 3

(3=Black)

 

O. State agency: Disparate Treatment -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Black)

 

P. Tavern: Patronage Discouraged -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

Q. Television Station: Coverage of Chorus Activity -- 1

Race = 1
(1=Black)

R. Trade Schools: Suspensions -- 3

Sex = 3

(3=Male)

S. Veterans org.: Bar Services refused -- 1

Race = 1

(1=Black)

T. Welfare services: Eligibility -- 2

Other = 1

Race = 1
(1=Indian)

The 169 complaints were filed against a wide range of respondents, with 73 companies, stores, or shops leading the way. Governmental agencies were the respondents in 26 of the other complaints.

(2) Apartment Buildings (H=2)
(8) Apartments - individual owners (H=8)
(1) Ballroom (PA=1)
(2) Bank (E=1, PA=1)
(1) Chamber of Commerce (PA=l)
(3) Colleges or Universities (PA=3)
(73) Companies, Shops, Stores (E=69, H=l, PA=3)
(2) Employers - individuals (E=2)
(3) Federal community services projects (E=3)
(26) Government

(9) City (E=2, PA=6, A & A=l)
(7) County (E=l, PA=6)
(3) Federal (E=3)
(7) State (E=4, PA=2, A & A=2)

(7) Homeowners - individuals (H=7)
(3) Hospitals (E=3)
(2) Judges (District Court) (E=l, PA=l)
(5) Mobile Home Courts (H=5)
(7) Motels (E=4, PA=3)
(2) Non-profit public service corporations (E=I, H=l)
(2) Nursing Homes (E=2)
(3) Real Estate Agencies (H=3)
(1) Realtors, Board of (local) (E=l)
(1) Restaurant (E=l)
(5) School Districts (E=l, PA=4)
(2) Taverns (E=l, PA=1)
(1) Television. station (PA=1)
(3) Trade Schools (PA=3)
(3) Unions (E=3)
(1) Veterans Org. (PA=1)

The 169 complaints arose in a total of 41 communities. Sixty-eight (68) of the 169 arose in the metropolitan Des Moines area, thus leaving 101 (or 60 percent) of the complaints arising in outlying areas. Thus, considerable traveling has been required in investigating and resolving a majority of the formal complaints.

Ames (8)
Ankeny (1)
Belmond (1)
Bettendorf (1)
Burlington (1)
Cedar Falls (6)
Cedar Rapids (9)
Centerville (3)
Cherokee (1)
Clive (1)
Council Bluffs (3)
Creston (2)
Davenport (12)
Des Moines (60)
Dubuque (1)
Estherville (1)
Fort Dodge (5)
Fort Madison (1)
Indianola (1)
Iowa City (6)
Keokuk (3)
Lemars (1)
Marshalltown (2)
Mason City (2)
Mt. Pleasant (1)
Muscatine (5)
North Liberty (1)
Oskaloosa (1)
Ottumwa (1)
Pleasant Valley (2)
Remsen (1)
St. Charles (1)
Shenandoah (1)
Sigourney (1)
Sioux City (5)
Tama (1)
Urbandale (1)
Vinton (1)
Waterloo (10)
Waverly (1)
West Des Moines (3)

THE IMPACT OF ADDING SEX DISCRIMINATION TO THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN 1970

Sex discrimination was added to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission's jurisdiction effective July 1, 1970. (Because of an oversight in draftsmanship, the ban on sex discrimination does not apply to housing.) In the subsequent five months (July - November, 1970), the Commission's caseload has increased significantly because of the addition of sex discrimination.

Thus, 30 of the 111 formal complaints (or 27 percent) filed since July 1, 1970 in all areas were on the basis of sex discrimination. Excluding the area of housing (in which sex discrimination is not outlawed), then 30 of the 95 formal complaints (or 32 percent) in employment, public accommodations, and aiding and abetting only which were filed since July 1, 1970 were on the basis of sex discrimination.