BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

ALICE J. PEYTON, Complainant, and IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION,

vs.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BUCHANAN COUNTY, Respondent.

CP # 01-90-19528

Findings of Fact Continued

III. Unequal Pay:

30. Respondent admits Peyton was paid less as jail administrator than either her predecessor, David Kuhn, or her successor, Mark Fettkether, both of whom were male. Respondent's Brief at 6. Both Fettkether, who was a deputy sheriff, and Kuhn, who was not, were paid a salary which was a percentage of the sheriff's salary.

31. From approximately August 3, 1982, David Kuhn was paid a salary which was fixed at eighty percent (80%) of the sheriff's salary. This represented a five percent increase from what was initially requested when he was hired, a salary of seventy-five percent (75%) of the sheriff's salary. See Finding of Fact No. 9. 32. Sergeant Mark Fettkether's salary was fixed at eighty two and two-tenths percent (82.2%) of the sheriff's salary before he accepted the jail administrator position. As part of his assignment to the position, Fettkether was promoted to Lieutenant. His salary was also increased to eighty-two and one-half percent (82.5%) of the sheriff's salary or $20,790 per year. See Finding of Fact No. 9.

33. The complainant was paid an hourly wage. Her initial wage as jail administrator was $5.00 per hour. (Tr. at 22). Her pay was increased to $5.16 per hour on July 22, 1985. (R. EX. L). On April 8, 1986, her pay was increased by $.16 per hour. (R. EX. M). A salary increase requested by the sheriff was denied by the Board effective May 6, 1986. (R. EX. N). A recommended increase to $6.00 per hour was denied by the Board on June 3, 1986. (R. EX. O). Her hourly rate was increased to $6.00 per hour on August 5, 1986. (R. EX. P). A three and one-half percent (3.5%) raise for Peyton was approved effective July 1, 1987. (R. EX. Q). Her salary was raised to $6.52 per hour by Board action taken on June 30, 1988. (R. EX. R). In the spring or summer of 1989, Peyton presented her salary survey to the Board. The Board made it clear that she would not be paid the equivalent of even the lowest salary found for comparable counties' jail administrators in the survey, i.e. $20,600. (Tr. at 28-29). Her final hourly rate increase by the Board was to $7.27 on June 19, 1989. (R. EX. S).

34. On two or more occasions, Complainant Peyton calculated how her combined regular and overtime compared to the sheriff's salary. Her income from Buchanan County was less than sixty percent (60%) of what the sheriff earned. (Tr. at 29).

35. The annual difference in pay between the eighty percent (80%) of the sheriff's salary which Kuhn received and the combined regular and overtime wages which Complainant Peyton received is shown here for the last five years of complainant's employment as jail administrator from 1985 to 1989 inclusive:

* Takes into account only Buchanan county earnings and 80% of sheriff's salary for 10 months of the year.

** Difference will vary from results in Complainant's Exhibit 17 which failed to subtract both her regular and overtime earnings from 80% of sheriff's salary. The subtraction of gross earnings was what was intended to be shown. (Tr. at 63-64).

(C. EX. # 16, 17).

IV. Prima Facie Case: The Job Performed by Complainant Peyton Became Substantially Equal in Terms of Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Required by the Job to That Performed by David Kuhn and Was Performed Under Similar Working Conditions:

A. Overview:

36. There was a common core of duties performed by Peyton at the beginning of her time as jail administrator which had also been performed by David Kuhn. There were also, however, substantial differences between the duties held by Alice Peyton at that time and those held by David Kuhn during his employment. Over time, however, Alice Peyton took on additional duties which were either the same as or different than those held by David Kuhn. Her duties expanded to equal or exceed those required of David Kuhn with respect to skill, effort and responsibility. These duties included supervision of over twice as many employees as were ever supervised by Kuhn. More difficult work requirements also resulted from the near tripling of the daily average inmate population. By mid-1985, at the latest, Peyton's duties were substantially equal to those performed by David Kuhn in terms of the skill, effort and responsibility required. These duties had always been performed under similar working conditions.

B. Common Core of Duties for Kuhn and Peyton:

37. There was a common core of duties performed by Alice Peyton, when she initially entered the position in 1984, which had also been performed by David Kuhn. Both were in charge of the administrative responsibilities for the jail. (Tr. at 21-22).

38. The administrative duties included:

a. Ensuring that all applicable rules and regulations governing jail operations are followed.

b. Preparing a work schedule for correctional officers and reporting actual hours worked to the county auditor.

c. Maintaining all records, files, accounts, and books required state, federal or local regulations. This included updating the jail policy manual.

d. Training and managing the jail staff.

e. Reporting all irregular or unusual occurrences in the jail to the sheriff.

f. Reporting needs for commodities and supplies required for operation of the jail, and ordering such supplies subject to the approval of the sheriff.

g. Assisting the sheriff with handling correspondence relating to the jail.

h. Being on call 24 hours a day for consultation with jail staff or for taking other action to handle problems which arose at the jail.

i. Transporting inmates to the doctor's or dentist's office.

j. Updating the jail policies and procedures manual.

k. Working on budgeting. This included such functions as determining whether line items in the jail budget need to be decreased or increased.

(R. EX. H; Tr. at 35, 43-44, 103-04, 108, 186).

C. Comparison of Kuhn's Duties With Peyton's Duties at the Beginning of Her Employment as Jail Administrator:

39. David Kuhn was employed as jail administrator from approximately January of 1982. He was terminated in August of 1983 and subsequently reinstated by 1984. He resigned in February or March of 1984. See Findings of Fact Nos. 22, 26.

1. Need to Modernize the Jail:

40. Prior to Kuhn's hire as jail administrator, the jail operated in an old-fashioned mode whereby the sheriff or his designee lived on the premises. (Tr. at 167). This individual and his family were responsible for operating the jail, including the care and feeding of inmates. The sheriff had an apartment adjacent to the jail. (Tr. at 167- 68, 230). There was no division of authority between regular sheriff's deputies and jail staff. The deputies booked inmates in, released them, and made their meals if the sheriff and his spouse were not available. (Tr. at 168, 229). They also conducted periodic checks on the inmates. (Tr. at 229). Because of increased federal and state regulation, the county found it was necessary to modernize the jail operations in order to keep the jail open. (Tr. at 169).

2. Creation of a Policy Manual:

41. Kuhn was given a broad mandate to get the jail working properly. (Tr. at 171). He developed policies and incorporated them in a jail manual. (C. EX. 13; Tr. at 172- 73, 230). This function was cited by Sheriff Dryer as the major difference in job duties which accounted for why Peyton was not paid as much as Kuhn. (Tr. at 186). The manual covered such items as food service, laundry, guidelines as to who is allowed into the jail, screening, classification and housing of inmates, and dealing with their health problems. (Tr. at 172).

42. The basic policy manual was in place when Peyton started as jail administrator. She was responsible for updating and fine-tuning old policies as well as making some new policies on visitation and other areas not specifically addressed by state regulation. (Tr. at 103). See Finding of Fact No. 38.

3. Physical Renovation of the Jail:

43. Kuhn was also in charge of a physical renovation of the jail. This involved extensive rebuilding in the jail itself. Locks were taken apart and cleaned or rendered inoperative if not needed. Windows were changed. Bunks and tables, made out of steel and hooked into the floor, were changed. (Tr. at 171). While much of this physical renovation was completed by the time Peyton became jail administrator, substantial physical modifications were eventually also made under her supervision. (Tr. at 293-95). This did not happen, however, until after Sheriff Dryer's term ended in November of 1984. (Tr. at 165, 187).

4. Hiring and Contracting Authority:

44. There is some controversy in the record concerning whether Kuhn actually had independent authority with respect to hiring and contracting. Sheriff Dryer, who was chief deputy under Sheriff Herrick, suggested that Kuhn had been given the authority by Sheriff Herrick to hire and fire personnel and order goods and services without consulting the sheriff. (Tr. at 167, 171, 176, 186). At another point, Dryer testified that Kuhn gave himself the authority to hire without consulting the sheriff by putting such authority in the jail manual. (Tr. at 176). It is not explained how Kuhn had the power to increase his own authority in this manner.

45. Dryer also testified, however, that most hiring done by Kuhn was actually done in consultation with Sheriff Herrick. (Tr. at 176). The one time indicated in the record where Kuhn actually did hire without consulting Sheriff Herrick is in the hiring of the complainant. (Tr. at 176). This was thought to be in violation of an anti-nepotism policy by Sheriff Herrick, who directed Kuhn to terminate her. (Tr. at 177). (Peyton's sister was a dispatcher for Buchanan County). (Tr. at 7). Kuhn asked Herrick to get a county attorney's opinion on whether the anti-nepotism policy was properly applied to the complainant. The matter was then dropped. (Tr. at 177).

46. Further problems arose over Kuhn's ordering of some goods. (Tr. at 177). Herrick discovered that Kuhn's actions had taken so much control over the jail that Iowa law, which required that the sheriff control jail operations, was being violated. (C. EX. 13 [Chap. 356 Iowa Code]; Tr. at 177). Sheriff Herrick, therefore, tried to discharge Kuhn. (Tr. at 177).

47. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that Kuhn did not actually have completely independent authority with respect to hiring and contracting for the jail. If he had such authority, the sheriff could not have attempted to discharge Kuhn for acting beyond his legal authority. It appears that this authority was actually subject to the approval of the sheriff. It can hardly be said that exercising authority beyond what an employee actually has, or which the law allows, represents part of the skill, effort or responsibility required by the job.

48. At the outset of her job as jail administrator, Peyton had the authority to order supplies with the approval of the sheriff. (R. EX. H; Tr. at 191). She did not initially have hiring or other contracting authority. (Tr. at 41, 49, 292). She was allowed to do grocery shopping for the jail on a daily basis from the beginning. (Tr. at 293).

5. Supervisory Duties:

49. When Kuhn was first hired he had no supervisory duties because there were no jail employees for him to supervise. (Tr. at 10, 174). It became necessary to hire some part-time employees for the jail in early 1982 because an inmate began to show signs of serious mental disease and had to be monitored around the clock. This resulted in hirings prior to those originally planned by the sheriff and the Board. (Tr. at 174-75).

50. The next hiring shown in the record was that of Complainant Peyton in September of 1982 as an on-call matron. See Finding of Fact No. 21. Two full-time jailers, Sandy Briggs and Mike Donohoe were hired in March of 1983. See Finding of Fact No. 23. After Donohoe was discharged in March or April of 1983, Peyton became a part-time employee. She was technically part-time although she worked Donohoe's full-time schedule. (Tr. at 71-72, 93-95, 179). Two other part-time jailers were also hired at this time. (Tr. at 72, 78). Thus, from April of 1983 to the end of his employment, Kuhn was supervising one full-time and three part-time jailers. (Tr. at 78, 179).

51. When Peyton began as jail administrator, she supervised one full-time and two part-time jailers. (Tr. at 22).