TAMMY R. COLLINS and LARRY W. COLLINS, Complainants, and IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION,
vs.
HOWARD C. FLOOK, Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
I. Jurisdictional and Procedural Facts:
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
1. The Complainants allege Respondent refused to rent them an apartment because Mr. Collins and the children are black. (Notice of Hearing-Complaints). By alleging they were refused this apartment for this reason, both Complainants have alleged that they suffered loss or damage and that their legal rights to fair housing have been denied due to race discrimination in housing. Both of them, therefore, have alleged they were aggrieved by such racial discrimination. This is sufficient to bring their complaints within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. See Conclusions of Law Nos. 1-4.
B. Procedural Matters:
2. Certain statutory prerequisites for hearing, such as filing, service, and investigation of the complaints, probable cause finding, election to not proceed in district court, determination to bypass conciliation, and notification of failure of conciliation have been met as admitted by Respondent. (CP. EX. # 1, 2). The complaints filed by Mr. and Mrs. Collins were also timely filed as they were filed on the same day as the alleged discrimination. (Notice of Hearing-Complaints; CP. EX. # 1, 2).
II. Background:
3. Larry and Tammy Collins are a married couple with three children Leo, Larry, and Treva. Their children's ages at time of hearing, in September of 1992, were, respectively, four, three, and one. Larry is Black. Tammy is White. (Tr. at 5-6, 26, 27, 44, 101-02). Mr. Collins is a veteran. (Tr. at 10, 46). In September of 1991, the family was living at the Catholic Worker House, a shelter for the homeless in Des Moines, Iowa. (Tr. at 6, 11, 45, 46). They had stayed at the shelter for three months while looking for an apartment. (Tr. at 11, 26). The Collinses are originally from Oklahoma. (Tr. at 50).
4. On Sunday, September 22, 1991, Mrs. Collins attended church. On her way back to the shelter, she saw a sign in front of a house at 515 Franklin Street indicating that an apartment was for rent. (Tr. at 6, 45). She talked to the Respondent Howard Flook, the owner, who told her he had an apartment for rent at 511 Franklin Street. (Tr. at 6, 7, 85).
5. Mrs. Collins informed him that she had a husband and children. (Tr. at 7). She was showed the apartment by Roger Popken, Flook's maintenance man. (Tr. at 8, 74). (At this time, Popken noticed Mrs. Collins had mixed race children. He later informed Flook of that fact.) (Tr. at 75). She then informed Flook that she was interested. She gave Flook the names of her references. Respondent Flook said he would rent it to her. She said she would get the key the next day when she paid the rent. (Tr. at 7-9). She informed Flook that she intended to pay the rent with a Veterans Administration voucher, as her husband was a veteran. (Tr. at 10, 46).
6. Mrs. Collins returned to the shelter and informed her husband that she had found an apartment. (Tr. at 10, 45). On the next day, the 23rd, the Collinses obtained a VA voucher. (CP. EX. # 3; Tr. at 11, 46-47). That morning, Mr. and Mrs. Collins and their children went to 511 Franklin to obtain Flook's full name for the voucher. (Tr. at 11-12, 47). Mr. Flook was either not there or did not come to the door. Nonetheless, the Collinses filled out the voucher based on his name at the mailbox at 515 Franklin. (Tr. at 12, 47-48). The first name is, however, misspelled on the form. (CP. EX. # 3). After looking at the apartment through the window, the family left. (Tr. at 47).
7. Mrs. Collins spoke to Respondent Flook on the telephone later that same day and informed him she had the voucher. (Tr. at 12). She then returned to his residence alone. (Tr. at 13, 48). Both Flook and Popken were in the area. (Tr. at 13, 74). Flook was in the front yard, going toward his car when Mrs. Collins drove in and presented the voucher. (Tr. at 13, 75). After stating he had not believed she would get the voucher, Flook informed her "I would rent to you, but I'm not going to". (Tr. at 14).
III. Direct Evidence of Discrimination:
A. Respondent Howard Flook Informed Mrs. Collins He Would Not Rent to Her Because She Had "Nigger Kids and a Nigger Husband":
8. In light of the overwhelming direct evidence in the record, set forth below, it is found that race was the reason Respondent Flook failed to rent to the Collinses. When Respondent Flook told Mrs. Collins that he was not going to rent to her, she inquired why not. He told her, "because you have nigger kids and a nigger husband." Mrs. Collins responded by saying "Excuse me." Flook stated that he had troubles with "niggers". Flook told her that they had put holes in the walls and had other "niggers" around and had fights. Mrs. Collins said "Thank you. Have a good day," and left. (Tr. at 14).
B. Respondent Howard Flook Admitted In His Testimony At Hearing That One Reason He Did Not Rent To The Collinses Was That Theirs Was a Mixed Race Marriage:
9. During his testimony at hearing, Howard Flook, while denying the use of the word "nigger", did credibly testify and admit that one reason he had for refusing to rent to Mr. and Mrs. Collins was because their marriage was "a mixed race marriage." (Tr. at 88-89, 99).
C. Respondent Howard Flook Also Admitted that Race Discrimination Was A Factor In Denying Housing to the Collinses During His Investigation Interview. (The Truth and Accuracy of the Interview Transcript Are Also Admitted By Respondent Flook):
10. Respondent Howard Flook also admitted, in his response to requests for admissions, that the transcript of the taped investigation interview between him and Commission investigator Larry Lockman held on or about October 1, 1991 "is a true and accurate transcription of the conversation." (CP. EX. # 1, 2). The truth and accuracy of this transcript, therefore, for reasons stated in the conclusions of law, are "conclusively established" in this proceeding for statements in it which are not contested by the complainants or the Commission in its prosecutorial capacity. The Respondent is bound by its admission of the truth and accuracy of such statements. See Conclusions of Law No. 5-6.
11. The truth and accuracy of the following portions of the transcript is established with respect to the admissions that race or the interracial or "mixed couple" status of the Collinses was the reason that Respondent Flook refused to rent to them:
Q. [By Lockman]: Could you tell me the conversation you had with her, what she said, what you said?
A. [By Flook]: Well, she was wanting an apartment and I told her we had...she knew cause she'd seen in the paper that we had this apartment for rent. And so she wanted to rent it.
Q. [By Lockman]: Is that all she said?
A. [By Flook]: That's about all as far as I remember that's about all she said.
Q. [By Lockman]: Well, what did you say to her renting it?
A. [By Flook]: Well, . . . I agreed to her renting it until a . . . I find out that . . . that . . . she was . . . mixed . . . Well, it isn't a marriage. I don't think she's married. She has a colored husband, a colored man with her wasn't a husband I don't think. I think he's just living with her.
Q. [By Lockman]: Okay, so you were gonna rent it to her until you found out she had this Black man with her?
A. [By Flook]: That's right.
Q. [By Lockman]: And what was wrong with that?
A. [By Flook]: Well, I've had trouble with the... the coloreds and I . . . and I've...so I...I wanna stay away from it...trouble as much as I can and so that's the reason I didn't rent to her.
(CP. EX. 2 [Attachment 1, pages 4-5]).
Q. [By Lockman]: [H]ave you ever rented to a Black person before?
A. [By Flook]: Well, I rented to a white person that...that took all...took a lot of Blacks in and took...she took most all of 'em in as far as that goes. They had a party there about every night and I had to get rid of her.
Q. [By Lockman]: So since that occasion..
A. [By Flook]: But we have rented, we haven't rented to any...I never rented to a colored... colored person before because...we...we...other tenants don't...don't go along with that too good and so I didn't rent it to her.
Q. [By Lockman]: The other tenants don't go along with that?
A. [By Flook]: No.
(CP. EX. 2 [Attachment 1, pages 5-6]).
Q. [By Lockman]: Okay. And you saw this Black man with her and you knew that he wouldn't be a good tenant?
A. [By Flook]: Well, I've had trouble with the Blacks tearing up the apartments and that's the reason I didn't put her in there.
Q. [By Lockman]: Now is there any Blacks you would rent to ?
A. [By Flook]: Well, there might be, I don't know.
Q. [By Lockman]: How would you determine that?
A. [By Flook]: Well if I knew...if they was around and. . . they were good tenants someplace else or...or if they were the right kind of people, I'd rent to 'em, sure.
Q. [By Lockman]: Did you ask her for references?
A. [By Flook]: No, I didn't ask her for references?
Q. [By Lockman]: Okay. So you based that decision solely upon her being with that Black man, is that correct?
A. [By Flook]: Well, that was the most of it, yeah.
Q. [By Lockman]: So you never rented to a Black person before?
A. [By Flook]: No. I don't remember ever renting to one.
Q. [By Lockman]: So your place [is] on Franklin, is that close to Sixth Avenue?
A. [By Flook]: Not too far from it.
Q. [By Lockman]: So you're in the middle of a ghetto and you've never rented to a black person?
A. [By Flook]: Well, not a Black person alone, no I haven't.
Q. [By Lockman]: And how long have you owned these places?
A. [By Flook]: Well, I owned one twenty some years and the others not quite that long.
(CP. EX. 2 [Attachment 1, page 7]).
Q. [By Lockman]: Okay. Well, you're just assuming that these people are gonna cause you trouble because of the color of their skin.
A. [By Flook]: No. I'm not assuming that at all, but I've had experience with that.
Q. [By Lockman]: Okay. And you've had no experiences with white people that's torn up your apartments?
A. [By Flook]: Yes. I've had experiences with white people.
Q. [By Lockman]: And you still rent to white people?
A. [By Flook]: I rent to white people.
(CP. EX. 2 [Attachment 1, page 8](emphasis added)).
D. Other Credible Evidence In the Record Demonstrates That Race Was A Factor In Respondent's Denial of Housing to the Collinses:
12. In addition to the credible testimony of Mrs. Collins and admissions of Respondent Flook, which have been set forth or cited in transcript references above, there is other direct evidence of discrimination. Roger Popken testified that Respondent Flook informed him that he would not accept the VA voucher from the Complainants because they were a racially mixed couple, and Flook had problems with such couples in the past. (Tr. at 76-78).