CHRISTY JOHNSON, Complainant,

VS.

KEOKUK MEL CASTING, Respondent.

On April 12, 1988, the Commission remanded this case to the Administrative Law Judge in compliance with the Order of the Honorable Willis S. Cahill, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District of Iowa. That Order, filed March 9, 1988, remanded this case to the Commission from an appeal in the District Court of Iowa in and for Lee County, Case #CL 925(S)0586.

In his Ruling on Petition for Judicial Review, Judge Cahill has ordered the Commission as follows:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED That the Order of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued April 22, 1986, be and hereby is reversed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this matter be and hereby is remanded to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for further proceedings consistent with this Ruling and other appropriate statutory and established principles of law. On remand the Commission is instructed to make new findings consistent with this ruling concerning whether Petitioner produced evidence of legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for discharging Christy R. Johnson. The Commission is further instructed to make additional findings regarding whether Ms. Johnson has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate non-retaliatory reasons proffered by Petitioner were merely pretextual and whether Ms. Johnson has carried her ultimate burden of persuasion with respect to all elements of her retaliation claim under Iowa Code Section 601A.11(2). The Commission should make specific findings with respect to the credibility of witnesses and whether there was a causal connection between Ms. Johnson's participation in protected activities and her subsequent discharge. In addressing the causal connection issue the standards announced in the case of Robinson v. Monsato Co., 758 F.2d 331, 335-336 (8th Cir. 1985), should be applied. The Commission is instructed to consider the whole agency record in making said additional findings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of this action shall be assessed to the Respondent.

After consideration of the agency record as a whole, and assessment of the credibility of witnesses, the following additional and revised findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth pursuant to the Order of the District Court.1

1References throughout this proposed decision shall be as follows:

To the transcript of the hearing "(Tr. __)";

to Complainant's exhibits "(C. Ex. __)";

and to Respondent's exhibits "(R. Ex. ___)".