SHERRY WILLIAMS, Complainant,
VS.
HISKEY APARTMENTS and EUGENE
HISKEY, Respondents.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The Complainant, Sherry
Williams, timely filed verified complaint CP# 06-83-10648 with
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on June 20, 1983, alleging a
violation of Iowa Code section 601A.6, discrimination in employment
on the basis of sex, by Hiskey Apartments and Eugene Hiskey, Respondents.
2. A true copy of the verified
complaint was promptly served by certified mail upon Respondents
on June 28, 1983.
3. The investigation was
completed on August 27, 1986. The investigator recommended a finding
of probable cause and on November 7, 1986, the Internal Hearing
Officer determined probable cause existed to credit the allegation
that Respondent discouraged and did not consider Complainant because
of her sex and that the failure to hire Complainant was caused
by sex discrimination.
4. On November 20, 1986,
Respondent was notified of the probable cause determination, conciliation
was attempted but failed and notice of hearing issued on April
7, 1987.
5. On Sunday, June 12, 1983, Respondent ran an advertisement in the classified section of the Des Moines Register which read as follows:
Needed by businessman for wide variety of responsibilities. Primary
business is apartment ownership and management. Other interests
include laundromats, car wash and vending. Applicant must be a
mature, hard- working, honest (bondable), neat-appearing person.
This is an office/supervisory position with excellent potential
for right person. $14,000/yr. to start with advancement as position,
responsibilities and knowledge of business increases. Must be
able to meet the public and present a positive image. For Appt.
call 274- 0434 Monday after 10:00 AM.
6. On Monday, June 13, 1987,
at approximately 10:05 A.M., Complainant called the number given
in the ad and tried to apply for the job. She testified that the
woman who answered the phone told her: "I hate to say no
to a woman, but Mr. Hiskey wants a man." (See Complainant's
Exhibit 3).
7. Complainant shared the
experience with her mother, Betty Williams, and called the Commission
at 10:09 A.M. that same morning (See Complainant's Exhibit 4).
8. The Commission intake
information process occurred on June 15, 1983 and on that same
day, Complainant sent a certified letter of application with resume
to the Hiskey Apartments. It was received by Respondent on June
17, 1983. There was no response to that letter.
9. Steinberg, the receptionist-secretary
for Respondent during June 1983, testified that she answered the
phone in response to the ad and scheduled the applicants for appointments
with Hiskey. Usually two days were set for scheduled interviews
and when the time slots were filled no more were scheduled. Steinberg
and Donna Beers were the only two persons receiving the phone
calls in response to the ad. Steinberg testified that she was
not told by Hiskey that he did not want women applicants and that
she did not discourage women applicants. She did not remember
how many, if any, women she scheduled for appointments for this
job.
10. Eugene Hiskey was the
owner of Hiskey Apartments. He testified that he had hired women
two prior times as general managers and that he did not instruct
anyone that he did not want a woman for the job at issue.
11. Respondent did hire
a male for the position at issue; one he interviewed on June 15
(See Respondent's Exhibit B). Hiskey testified that he was scheduled
to interview 2 women; one he did interview and the other did not
show. Sullivan, the male hired, could not begin work until July
1, but Hiskey said he hired him that next day (June 16) after
he checked references.
12. Donna Beers, a prior
employer, was hired just for the day of June 13, to help answer
the phone calls since both Hiskey and his wife were to be gone.
She was told that when the time slots were filled, to just take
the name and number and explain that all appointments had been
filled and if the position was not filled with the applicants
who had appointments they would be called. Beers allegedly had
distinctive slurring of her words due to a stroke which occurred
in early 1981. None was noticeable at the hearing.
13. Hiskey testified that
the applicants to be interviewed were selected by calling in,
writing their name on the schedule sheet as to the time they were
to come in until the schedule sheet was filled; i.e., the first
one that called got the name down,
then the second caller, etc. The secretaries were not asked to
screen the calls.
14. Beers testified that
Hiskey called her and said: "Donna, after working for me
for two years, you are aware of what I need in this office, what
the duties would be of a general manager," and "would
you consider coming in, even part time or giving as many hours
to help Sharon out with the phone?". She accepted and worked
on June 13 starting about 10 o'clock. She used Hiskey's office.
The door between the two offices, the one used by Beers and the
one used by Steinberg, was closed. Steinberg divided the scheduling
chart with one taking on-the-hour appointments and one the half
hour appointments.
Beers denied that she told
any callers that Hiskey wanted a man for the job. She also testified
that she made appointments with women and she didn't remember
refusing to book any appointments.
15. Beers said that she had discussed with Steinberg that the ad was misleading in that it did not indicate the amount of physical labor involved. Steinberg denied such a discussion. Beers admitted discouraging several "perceived older" women from scheduling interviews because of potential physical labor of the job (Transcript pages 102-103).
16. Complainant's relevant earnings were as follows:
| 1983 | $5,214.00 | ($640 after date of incident) Unemployment compensation |
| $1,192.53 | Manpower, Inc. | |
| $1,083.76 | State Comptroller | |
| $462.95 | Kelly Services | |
| $62.32 | 4th Quarter State Contribution | |
| Total | $3,441.56 | (from June 20, 1983) |
| 1984 | $15,160.64 | State of Iowa |
| $868.76 | Fringe Benefits | |
| Total | $16,029.40 | |
| 1985 | $4,144.14 | State of Iowa |
| $12,692.00 | HOMZ | |
| Total | $16,836.14 | |
| 1986 | $18,321.60 | HOMZ |
| $97.00 | Unemployment | |
| Total | $18,418.60 | |
| 1987 | $4,212.00 | 26 Weeks Unemployment |
| $1,416.83 | Manpower | |
| Total | $5,628.83 | (through 8-28-87) |
18. Complainant had approximately four years of experience in rental management. Sullivan, the preferred applicant had no rental management experience.