ALLEN CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, Complainant,

and

IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

vs.

LOCAL P-3 RETIREES, INC., Respondent.

SUMMARY*

This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on the Complaint, alleging discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, filed by Allen Christopher Davis against the Respondent Local P-3 Retirees, Inc.

Complainant Davis, a Black male, alleges that the Respondent effectively denied him rental of the Respondent's hall through different treatment on the basis of race because he was required to hire police officers as security in order to rent the hall. He also alleged that Jessie Taken, who was acting on behalf of the Respondent, made blatant discriminatory remarks regarding Blacks renting the hall.

A public hearing on this complaint was held on March 7, 1995 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge, at the Linn County Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The Respondent was represented by Robert F. Wilson, Attorney. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission was represented by Rick Autry, Assistant Attorney General. The Complainant, Allen Christopher Davis, was not represented by counsel.

The Commission's Brief was received on May 25, 1995. The Respondent's Brief was received on May 23, 1995.

The Commission failed to prove Complainant Davis's allegations of discrimination in public accommodations because of his race under the disparate treatment theory. The Commission attempted to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by utilizing both circumstantial and direct evidence of discrimination.

The circumstantial evidence did establish some elements of a prima facie case of race discrimination, i.e. that Complainant Davis was Black; that the hall was available for rent; that Davis offered to rent the hall; that the hall ultimately was not rented to him and remained available for rent. However, the Commission did not establish the remaining element of Complainant's qualification for renting the hall. The evidence did not show that he met the requirements for arranging security for the party even though those requirements were not discriminatorily applied.

The Commission tried to show discriminatory animus toward Complainant Davis by suggesting that, once the Respondent saw Davis in person, and became aware he was Black, it engaged in a series of delaying tactics designed to discourage him from renting the hall. These included (1) requiring him to pay in cash; (2) raising the issue of whether liquor was to be sold at the party Davis planned to hold; and (3) requiring that he provide security consisting of two uniformed police officers.

The evidence indicated that: (1) As admitted in his complaint, Davis was initially informed over the telephone that cash would be required before he ever met the Respondent's representative, Ms. Taken. (2) (a) The topic of selling liquor was initially raised in the telephone conversation with Davis, (b) at his meeting with Ms. Taken, Davis raised the issue of liquor being sold or served at the party, and (c) asking Davis about the sale of liquor was in accordance with established Respondent policies prohibiting such sale. (3) (a)The requirement of security was raised at the initial telephone conversation, and (b) asking Davis if he could meet security requirements was in accordance with established Respondent policy for the kind of party which Davis intended to hold.

The requirement imposed on Complainant Davis that two police officers be hired as security for the hall was in accordance with the Respondent's policy for functions other than wedding receptions, anniversaries, and similar functions which would normally be limited to invited family and friends. The circumstantial evidence did not support the proposition that Respondent treated renters or prospective renters of the hall differently on the basis of race.

Although Ms. Taken mentioned gangs when talking to Davis, she did so when explaining the reason the police had given her for requiring two officers at a party where police were used as security. She simply reiterated what the police had told her. She did not engage in the racial stereotyping of Blacks or of Complainant Davis while discussing the rental of the hall.

Racial discrimination may also be proven by direct evidence. Although the complaint suggested that Ms. Taken made blatant discriminatory remarks concerning Blacks renting the hall, no evidence was introduced to support that allegation.

The testimony of Complainant Davis girlfriend, Andrea Arneson, indicates that she placed only one telephone call in an attempt to contact the Respondent and see what the response would be if she tried to rent the hall. She testified that the call was to the Respondent's hall and that she talked to an unidentified male. This man allegedly told her that she did not need security and that the only problems they had were with Blacks. There are, however, numerous problems with Ms. Arneson's testimony. The evidence indicates that, in fact, she made more than one call. It is impossible on this record to determine who she talked to or what locations she actually called. It cannot be said on this record that she actually talked to someone who had the authority to represent the Respondent in renting the hall. Also, there were other problems with her credibility which indicate this testimony is unreliable.

Given that the Commission has failed to meet its burden of proving that discrimination occurred, this case should be dismissed.

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