BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
TAMMY R. COLLINS and LARRY W. COLLINS, Complainants, and IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
vs.
HOWARD C. FLOOK, Respondent.
CP# 09-91-21524
CP# 09-91-21525
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
1. On this date, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, at its regular meeting, adopted the Administrative Law Judge's proposed decision and order with all the modifications set forth in the Commission's Exceptions to the Proposed Decision and Order filed on June 8, 1994. The proposed decision and order, as so modified, is hereby incorporated in its entirety as if fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this the 24th day of June, 1994.
Sally O'Donnell
Chairperson
Iowa Civil Rights Commission
211 E. Maple
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
NOTE: MODIFICATIONS:
1. The following finding of fact was inserted after finding of fact 21A:
21B. Respondent Howard Flook showed a willful and wanton disregard for the rights of the Complainants by his flagrant discrimination against them. This act of discrimination was directed specifically at these Complainants.
2. The following was inserted after conclusion of law 39:
VII Civil Penalty
39A. Since July 1, 1991 the Commission has been authorized to award a civil penalty where housing discrimination is proved. Iowa Code §216.15A(11)(b); 91 Acts ch 184 §10 (signed into law May 17, 1991). In cases of first time offenders the Commission is authorized to award a maximum of $10,000. The purpose of a civil penalty is to "vindicate the public interest." Code §216.15(11).
39B. Howard Flook's violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act in this case was flagrant. He showed a willful and wanton disregard for the right of Larry and Tammy Collins to be free from discrimination. See Finding of Fact 21A, 21B. A civil penalty in the amount of $2,000 for this act of discrimination against these complainants is fully justified in order to vindicate the public interest. Although there are two complainants injured by this act there is only a single act to penalize. Thus only a single civil penalty in the amount of $2,000 is being imposed.
3. The heading on page 34 was renumbered from VII to VIII.
4. The decision and order was modified by inserting the following after paragraph H:
1. Respondent Flook is assessed a single civil penalty in the amount of $2,000.
5. The decision and order was modified by inserting the following after paragraph 1:
J. Respondent Flook is assessed all hearing costs allowed by commission rule 4.7(3) (effective March 25, 1992) and which were actually incurred in the processing of this public hearing. The precise calculation of costs shall be as shown on the bill of costs which is to be issued under the executive director's signature after this decision becomes final.
6. Conclusion of Law 36 was modified to read as follows:
36. It is the policy of the commission where emotional distress damages are sought to state the reasons for any denial of emotional distress damage awards in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Striking the findings of fact and conclusions of law and entering a denial of an ward are not sufficient to meet this requirement. The Commission has authority to adopt this policy by means of this decision. Lenning v. IDOT, 368 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Iowa 1985).
7. Conclusion of Law 39 was modified to read as follows:
39. It is especially important for this Commission to avoid this misimpression because nullification of the law has a particularly ugly history with respect to civil rights. In his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. referred to the "governor [of Alabama] having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification ..." From this point onward, therefore, reasons for denying emotional distress damage awards shall be stated in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.