This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on the Complaint, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, filed by Complainants Tammy and Larry Collins against the Respondent Howard Flook.

Complainants Larry and Tammy Collins allege that Respondent Flook failed to rent to them because they are a mixed race couple and indicated that he would not rent to Blacks. Larry is Black. Tammy is White. Through their complaints, they allege that they were subjected to different treatment on the basis of race.

A public hearing on this complaint was held on September 15, 1992 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge, at the offices of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in Des Moines, Iowa. The Respondent was represented by Gregory Peterson, Attorney. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission was represented by Rick Autry, Assistant Attorney General. The Complainants, Larry Collins and Tammy Collins, were not represented by counsel.

The Commission's Brief and the Respondent's Brief were both received on November 13, 1992.

Complainants Tammy and Larry Collins proved their allegations of discrimination in housing because of race under the disparate treatment theory. The proof was in the form of direct evidence of discrimination, including admissions by Flook in his testimony at hearing and his investigation interview, that he refused to rent to the Complainants because they were an interracial or mixed race couple.

In a case, such as this one, where discrimination is proven primarily by direct evidence, the Respondent cannot rebut the Complainant's initial case merely by offering evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. That lighter burden of production only applies to "pretext" cases which rely on circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination. Rather, Respondent must not only produce such evidence, but must prove, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, (1) that it actually relied on independent, lawful reasons at the time of the alleged discrimination, and (2) that those reasons, standing alone, would have resulted in the denial of the rental. It is not enough to show that denial of the rental for such reasons would have been justified. The Respondent must prove that the denial would have happened for the stated reasons in the absence of discrimination. See Conclusion of Law No. 14.

The Respondent offered two other reasons for failure to rent to the Collinses. The first reason offered by Respondent is that it believed the Complainants were not married. (The Respondent admits, on brief, that Complainants are, in fact, married). The second is that the living space in the apartment was too small for their family. Respondent has not met its burden of persuasion with regard to either reason. It has proved neither that these reasons were actually relied on nor that they independently would have resulted in denial of rental in the absence of the admitted and proven race discrimination. Indeed, the evidence suggests these reasons are false. See Findings of Fact Nos. 14-21. See Conclusion of Law No. 14.

Remedies awarded include a cease and desist order, reporting requirements, $15,000 for Tammy Collins, and $15,000 for Larry Collins in emotional distress damages, and interest.

This summary is provided as an aid to understanding the decision. It is not part of the findings of fact or conclusions of law.