DEBRA S. HOFFMAN, Complainant,
and
IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
vs.
MAMA LACONA'S - WEST, JIM LACONA, and JOEL LOPEZ, Respondents.
This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on
the Complaint filed by Debra S. Hoffman against the Respondents
Mama Lacona's-West, Jim Lacona, and Joel Lopez. Ms. Hoffman alleges
(a) sex discrimination in employment and (b) retaliation for lawfully
opposing sex discrimination.
Complainant Debra Hoffman, a female, alleges that she was subjected
to sexual harassment by Respondent Joel Lopez and other co-workers.
She alleges that Respondents Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona
were aware of this harassment, but did not end it. She also alleges
retaliation in her amended complaint. She believes she was discharged
by Respondent Mama Lacona's-West due to her lawful opposition
to sexual harassment.
A public hearing on this complaint was held on October 24-25,
1995 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law
Judge, at Room 19 of the Iowa State Capitol Building in Des Moines,
Iowa. The Respondents Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona were represented
by Douglas A. Fulton, Attorney. The Respondent Joel Lopez did
not appear and was not represented. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission
was represented by Teresa Baustian, Assistant Attorney General.
The Complainant, Debra Hoffman, was represented by James J. Beery
and Thomas D. McMillen.
The Commission's Brief was received on December 11, 1995. The
Respondent's Brief was received on December 12, 1995.
The Commission proved Complainant Hoffman's allegations of
sexual harassment against Respondents Mama Lacona's-West, Jim
Lacona and Joel Lopez by establishing:
a. that she is a female and is therefore a member of a class protected against sex discrimination;
b. that she was subjected to harassment by Respondent Lopez and other employees of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West. This was adverse conduct which she regarded as uninvited and offensive and which any reasonable person would regard as offensive;
c. that this harassment was based upon her sex, i.e. because she is female;
d. that this harassment created a hostile or abusive work environment; and,
e. that Respondent Mama Lacona's-West, through its agents and managers, including but not limited to Respondent Jim Lacona, knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, appropriate, and effective remedial action
The Commission proved Complainant Hoffman's allegations of
retaliatory discharge under the circumstantial evidence method
of proof. It established a prima facie case by proving: (a) that
Complainant Hoffman took action to lawfully oppose sexual harassment
while employed at Mama Lacona's-West; (b) that Complainant Hoffman
was discharged from Mama Lacona's-West; and; (c). that there is
a causal link between her discharge and her lawful opposition
to the retaliation. That link was established by (1) the close
proximity in time between her opposition and the discharge, (2)
the atmosphere of condoned sexual harassment which increases the
likelihood of retaliation for opposition to harassment; (3) the
failure by Mama Lacona's to follow usual procedures with respect
to complaints about rudeness by food servers when such a complaint
was made against Hoffman, and (4) false testimony by managers
to the effect they were not aware of Complainant's opposition
to harassment.
The employer rebutted the prima facie case by introducing evidence
articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge,
i.e. that she was rude to a customer.
This reason, however, was shown by the evidence to be a pretext
for retaliation. This included evidence indicating that the practices
and procedures normally or purportedly followed by Respondent
with respect to complaints of rudeness were not followed with
the Complainant. The evidence also indicates that Complainant's
conduct with respect to this reason, and a different reason provided
her at time of discharge, was punished more severely than similar
or worse conduct by other employees.
Other evidence of pretext included the employer providing inconsistent
reasons for Complainant's discharge at the time of her discharge
and at hearing. In addition, the numerous weaknesses, implausibilities,
inconsistencies, incoherencies, and contradictions in management's
testimony concerning the discharge and related events support
a finding that the reason given for Complainant's discharge is
unworthy of credence. The ultimate finding of discrimination is
supported by the combination of the inference of discrimination
remaining from the prima facie case and the finding that the purported
reason for discharge is not credible.
Remedies awarded include $2773.77 in back pay, premiums for
medical insurance, $20000.00 for emotional distress damages resulting
from sexual harassment, and $7500.00 for emotional distress damages
resulting from retaliatory discharge.
*This summary is provided as an aid to understanding the decision.
It is not part of the findings of fact and conclusions of law.