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

6. Additional Jail Operations Duties Performed by Peyton:

52. In addition to the administrative duties, Peyton also performed basic jail operations identical to those performed by the jailers she supervised. (Tr. at 21-22). Correctional officer duties performed by Peyton, as well as the jailers, included:

Supervision of inmates held in jail . . . including the making of required headcounts.

The maintenance of a written log sheet of the activities taking place in the jail. . . .

The preparation of meals regularly served. . ..

The distribution of medications. . . .

The maintenance of a neat and orderly operation, which shall include such housekeeping chores as may be required.

(R. EX. H; C. EX. 13; Tr. at 21).

7. Comparison of Skill, Effort, Responsibility and Working Conditions:

53. It is important to remember that what is being compared are the skill, effort, and responsibility requirements and the similarity of the working conditions of the job, and not the qualifications of employees. See Conclusion of Law No. 32.

54. The skills involved in creating a jail policy manual include having sufficient knowledge of jail operations and sufficient writing ability to create such a manual. Such skills would also be utilized in revising the manual and updating it with new policies. The physical and mental efforts involved in both of these tasks would be similar. However, authoring a completely new policy manual is a substantially greater responsibility than merely updating or revising such a manual.

55. Peyton's responsibilities also did not initially include supervising the physical renovation of the jail, hiring employees with approval of the sheriff or contracting out. These are substantial differences in responsibility. The skills and mental and physical effort associated with such duties were, therefore, also not utilized.

56. If Peyton's supervisory responsibilities when she first became jail administrator are compared to Kuhn's varying responsibilities at different times in his employment, they might well be considered substantially equal. Kuhn supervised four employees, one more than Peyton, at the end of his term of employment. However, at earlier times, he supervised fewer than three employees. On the whole, the skill, effort, and responsibility exercised with respect to supervisory efforts may be considered to be substantially equal between the two positions. This is particularly true if Peyton's continued responsibility for directly participating in basic jail operations, which were also performed by those she supervised, are taken into account.

57. On the whole, Complainant Peyton's position was not substantially equal in terms of skill, effort and responsibility with that held by David Kuhn at the beginning of her employment as jail administrator. The working conditions, i.e. the surroundings and hazards, were similar. See Conclusion of Law No. 38.

D. By Mid-1985, Complainant Peyton's Position Was Still Performed Under Similar Working Conditions and Became Substantially Equal to the Position Formerly Held by David Kuhn With Respect to the Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Required to Perform the Job:

1. Complainant Peyton Supervised Further Renovation of the Jail:

58. Sheriff Dryer testified that physical renovation of the jail had ended during Kuhn's tenure as jail administrator. (Tr. at 187). It appears that Dryer stated the facts as he knew them to exist through the end of his term in November of 1984. (Tr. at 165). Nonetheless, there definitely was further renovation and construction in the jail which took place under Peyton's supervision. Apparently, this occurred after Dryer left. (Tr. at 293-95).

59. Under Peyton's supervision, a work release cell with a capacity of four inmates was added to the jail. (Tr. at 293). This involved installing toilet facilities, bunks and a table into a bare room. (Tr. 293-94). In all cells that had top bunks, the bunks were removed, the walls sanded and everything repainted. (Tr. at 294). The entire jail was repainted during this process. (Tr. at 294).

60. In the female cell, the top bunk and a large table were removed. A new bunk and two fold-down tables were installed. (Tr. at 294).

61. A visitation room was installed which allowed inmates and their visitors to sit down and visit. Prior to this, the inmates would stand in the cell area and talk to a visitor by telephone. (Tr. at 294-95).

62. A new booking room was installed. This enhanced safety because knives and utensils were at hand in the kitchen area, where booking was formerly done. (Tr. at 295).

63. Peyton was responsible for accomplishing all of this either by contracting with local contractors or by overseeing the work being done by individuals as part of their sentences. (Tr. at 295).

2. Complainant Peyton Interviewed and Hired Correctional Officers While Jail Administrator:

64. As the designee of the sheriff, Complainant Peyton interviewed and hired, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors, correctional officers (jailers) as the sheriff's designee. (C. EX. 13; Tr. at 41, 49, 151-52, 297). Approximately six months to a year after her hire as jail administrator, Complainant Peyton began to perform both hiring and discipline functions with respect to jailers. (Tr. at 293). One year after her entry into the position would be March or April of 1985. See Finding of Fact Nos. 7, 27. Because of staff turnover, interviewing and hiring took an increasing amount of Peyton's time and effort. (C. EX. 19; Tr. at 49).

3. Complainant Peyton's Supervisory Responsibilities Eventually Exceeded Those Required When David Kuhn Was Jail Administrator:

65. The supervisory responsibilities required of Complainant Peyton in the job grew to be over twice as great as those required of David Kuhn. During Kuhn's term, he supervised a maximum of four jail employees. See Finding of Fact No. 50. By the end of Alice Peyton's employment, she was supervising nine jail employees. (Tr. at 35, 49). The jail was staffed for 24 hours a day after Peyton became administrator. Prior to that, the jail was staffed 20 hours a day. (Tr. at 145). Such a difference in numbers of employees supervised represents a substantial difference in the responsibility and mental effort required by the job. See Conclusion of Law No. 40-41.

66. Because of the larger staff and the constant turnover, training required an increased amount of time and effort over what David Kuhn was required to do. (Tr. at 49). The training function also became more complex as she provided jailers with much more training in basic jail operations, personal safety and the use of electronic devices, such as the Intoxilizer. (Tr. at 145).

Complainant Peyton's Administrative Responsibilities Eventually Exceeded Those Required When David Kuhn Was Jail Administrator:

67. Two factors led to a near tripling of the daily average inmate population at the Buchanan County jail. The increase in daily average inmate population and an increase from staffing 20 hours a day to 24 hours a day largely accounted for the increase in staff. (Tr. at 49, 51-52, 145). "The responsibilities grew as the jail population grew." (Tr. at 49). It is well-recognized in a jail setting that an increase in inmate population may connote a substantial increase in effort and responsibility. See Conclusion of Law No. 41.

68. First, there was an increase in the contracting of prisoners for other counties. That is, other counties would pay Buchanan County to incarcerate their inmates in its jail. By mid-1985, contracting of prisoners was a regular practice at the jail. (Tr. at 51). During the fiscal year from July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, Buchanan County was bringing in $64,000.00 from such contracts. (C. EX. 19; Tr. at 84). This reduced the amount of Buchanan County jail costs paid by other revenues to $8,000.00 per year. (C. EX. 19).

69. Second, a legal requirement for mandatory sentencing to 48 hours in jail for persons convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence also led to an increase in the inmate population. This requirement led to the construction of the work release cell which raised the capacity of the jail by four inmates. (Tr. at 51-52).

70. Because of these factors, the daily average inmate population grew from between 4 and 5 inmates for the period from 1982 to the end of 1984 or beginning of 1985 to an average of between 10 and 12 inmates. (Tr. at 52-53).

71. This evidence alone is sufficient to demonstrate a dramatic increase in the administrative responsibilities and effort required for the jail administrator position by mid- 1985.

72. The increase in jail staff and inmate population impacted other jail administrator duties. Recordkeeping requirements increased as there was a file for each inmate. (Tr. at 49). Other record keeping requirements included end of the month reports, ordering supplies, work-release accounts, work-release agreements, billing for contract inmates, budget work, jail schedules, payroll, filing bills with the auditor's office, and updating the policies and procedures manual. (Tr. at 35-36).

73. Since Peyton was on-call for 24 hours a day, she would be called to jail to handle problems 10 to 15 times a month. (Tr. at 41, 104). Peyton also approved work release contracts, authorized travel passes for inmates, and determined which inmates would be allowed to help out around the jail as trustees. (Tr. at 44-46). She would also, with approval of the sheriff, calculate the "good time" for an inmate. This is credit on an inmate's for sentence for good behavior. She would prepare the necessary documents and submit it to the courts. (Tr. at 46-47). There was also an increased amount of work to ensure that prisoner rights were protected and that the jail was shielded from liability. (Tr. at 49-50).

74. Peyton was also in charge of disciplining inmates. She would arrange discussions on whether the infraction was serious enough to be heard by a disciplinary board or could be handled by a verbal or written warning. She would ask three persons to sit on the board and have a hearing. If the inmate was found guilty, the board would determine appropriate punishment. (Tr. at 47).

75. During this time, a computer system was installed at the jail. Peyton entered all of the data pertinent to jail operations into the computer. (Tr. at 35, 50). This included data entered as part of the booking procedure. (Tr. at 50). Peyton also had the responsibility of entering all changes, updates and corrections on the system. (Tr. at 35, 50). The jail administrator also became responsible for completing fingerprint cards and sending them to the FBI or the state. (Tr. at 49).

76. When Kuhn was jail administrator, the chain of command was: Sheriff--->jail administrator--->jailer. (Tr. at 71). See Findings of Fact Nos. 44-47. When Peyton was jail administrator, the chain of command for the first part of Sheriff Dryer's term was: Sheriff--->deputy Hansel--- >jail administrator--->jailer. Eventually, Hansel was removed and Peyton reported directly to Dryer. (Tr. at 183). This continued until September or October of 1984 when Dryer assigned his jail functions to his chief deputy. This was done as Dryer needed to devote more of his time to the election. (Tr. at 183-84, 188). After Sheriff Dryer's term ended in November of 1984, the chain of command was once again and remained: Sheriff--->jail administrator--- >jailer. (Tr. at 75, 78).

77. During the time that Peyton was jail administrator, the Buchanan County jail was inspected bystate correctional services representative John McSweeney. (Tr. at 117-18, 122-23). He noted that the actual duties assigned to jail administrators may vary from county to county. Therefore, there is a range of authority and responsibility which may be associated with the position. (Tr. at 120). He credibly testified: (a) that the complainant's authority and responsibility were at the upper end of that range, and; (b) that Peyton ran a well-administered jail. (Tr. at 123, 125, 139).

78. Throughout the time Peyton was jail administrator the working conditions with respect to hazards and surroundings were at least similar to those facing David Kuhn. It could be inferred that the hazards were somewhat greater with the increase in the number of inmates.

79. By mid-1985, the responsibilities, and, consequently, the mental and physical effort and skill required of the jail administrator job performed by Alice Peyton either equaled or exceeded those required of David Kuhn. See Findings of Fact Nos. 64, 68, 70-71. This continued through the remainder of her time as jail administrator.

80. The combination of (a) unequal pay between Complainant Peyton, a female, and David Kuhn, a male; for (b) a position performed under similar working conditions, where (c) the skill, effort, and responsibility required to perform the job are substantially equal, is sufficient in itself to establish a prima facie case of equal pay discrimination on the basis of sex. See Conclusion of Law No. 31, 33.