APPENDIX I
IRONWORKERS CASE
The following is a detailed analysis of the facts, district court decision,
and Iowa Supreme Court holdings in the case of Ironworkers Local #67 and
William Reed v. John Hart and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Earlier
in this report a summary of the 17 major issues touched on by the Court
was presented.
November 11, 1971 was an important day in the history of the still youthful
Iowa Civil Rights Commission, for on that day the Iowa Supreme Court handed
down its first decision based upon the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the Act which
created the Commission and entrusted it with the task of enforcing the Iowa
laws against discrimination. In rendering its decision in the case of Ironworkers
Local #67 and William Reed v. John Hart and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission,
the Court chose to go somewhat beyond the facts of the case and to comment
in a more specific fashion on the Act as a whole and the Commission interpretation
thereof. The Court stated, "This is the first appeal to reach our court
calling for an interpretation of Chapter 105A (Iowa Civil Rights Act of
1965). For this reason a detailed treatment of this law, and the facts,
is required." In so saying the Court intended that it might provide
more insight and guidance than has been available.
Facts of the Case
The Commission found in a public hearing concluded on April 30, 1970 that
on April 23, 1969 the Ironworkers Local 67's business agent (William Reed)
issued a work permit to Joseph Roe, a black non-union member -- but that
later that same day members of the Ironworkers local union began leaving
the job on sick leave after Mr. Reed visited the job site. The sick leave
absences increased the next day, whereupon John Hart, the vice-president
of the Weitz Construction Company, filed a complaint of discrimination under
the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The workers returned to work on April 25, by
which time the Weitz Construction Company had suffered damages due to work
delays and to the extra expense of hiring security guards after anonymous
telephone threats of violence at the work site. The Commission concluded
after the hearing that the union and its agent had violated the Iowa Civil
Rights Act, and issued certain orders which were the subject of the union's
petition for review to the district court for Polk County.
The Commission's order was dated May 13, 1970 and included the following
provisions:
a. It enjoined Local 67 from any harassment, coercion, or duress, against any person seeking membership. The union was further enjoined "from leaving a job or otherwise harassing any contractor giving employment to minority persons."
b. Local 67 was directed to admit Joseph Roe to union membership and to submit to the Commission an affirmative action program to recruit, solicit and admit minorities to its membership.
c . The union was directed to issue work permits to all persons equally without regard to race, creed, color, religion or national background and to admit membership to "any persons who have completed six months of satisfactory employment on a work permit."
d. It was ordered that all persons be signed out on jobs from the union hall equally on a first come- first served basis, within the framework of union operating procedure "except that a union member may not be preference solely on the basis of his membership.
e. Local 67 was directed to report to the Commission monthly commencing July 1, 1970 the number of minorities "contacted, issued work permits and admitted to membership," and the reports were to include "the reasons for rejection, denial of work permits and why membership was not granted." Such reports were to include "the name, addresses and telephone numbers of minorities contacted and the jobs to which they were assigned."
f. All tests were to be validated for cultural bias and job relatedness and were to be first submitted to the Commission along with proof of validation before being used.
g. In addition, the Commission rendered judgment in favor of Weitz and against Local 67 for $6,000.00; and against Reed personally for $1,314.56, to be paid within 60 days.
Local 67 and Reed petitioned for review to the Polk County District Court.
The case was there submitted on the transcribed record made before the Commission.
As a result of this de novo review, the district court found Reed had caused
union members to walk off the post office project under the subterfuge of
illness because the Weitz Company wanted to hire a black person through
the union hiring hall on a work permit, he being otherwise qualified. The
Court found the union and Reed had violated §105A.7(l)(c) by indicating
black persons were not welcome for employment or membership. By decree dated
November 16, 1970, the district court adopted the Commission's order with
only two changes. The direction to local 67 to admit Roe and all other who
had completed six months of satisfactory employment was conditioned that
they be "qualified as measured by the usual qualifications for such
status applicable to all other applicants." The judgment rendered by
the Commission was modified. Reed's obligation to pay was omitted, and the
union's obligation was reduced to $1,033.50, to be paid the Weitz Company
as damages for expenses incurred by that company as a result of the union's
act.
From that decree Local 67 and Reed appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, asserting
as propositions relied on for reversal of the lower court's decision:
1. Hart, the complainant, was not aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents;
2. the lower court order is not in accord with the charge in the complaint nor with the evidence;
3. the Iowa Civil Rights Act (section 105A.7(l)(c)) is unconstitutional and void for vagueness, and the Act (section 105A.9(12)) is unconstitutional and void for improper delegation of power; and
4. compensatory damages cannot
be awarded under §IOSA.9(12) of the Act.
The Court initially noted, before
dealing with the specific issues, that " . . . our Iowa constitution
declares all men are, by nature, free and equal (art. I, para. 1). This
freedom and equality must and does extend into the area of facilities, services,
goods furnished to the general public, housing and employment practices."
The Court continued, "The Iowa legislation [Civil Rights Act] in another
manifestation of a national drive to right wrongs prevailing in our social
and economic structures for more than a century." Thus the court set
the stage for this historic decision.
Legend
Henceforth in this discussion: Commission., agency, or administrative agency
will refer to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission; Act, statute, law, or Chapter
105A (and sections thereof) will refer to the Iowa Civil Rights Act; Court
will refer to the Iowa Supreme Court; complainant will refer to John Hart
(for the Weitz Company); respondents will refer to Ironworkers Local #67
and William Reed; Reed will refer to William Reed; Weitz will refer to the
Weitz Company, and Hart will refer to John Hart.
Constitutionality
The Ironworkers contended that two sections of the Iowa Civil
Rights Act were unconstitutional. The Court initially dismissed these challenges
advising that, "They do not even allege what provisions of the constitution
are offended nor even which constitution is invoked." The Court did,
however, go on to analyze and comment on each of the challenges.
Respondents first claimed that section 105A.7(l)(c) attempts to control
private actions of individuals. The Court answered by reminding the respondent
that it is a labor union and certified bargaining agent for the Ironworkers,
" . . . not a social club. * * * Social conduct and feelings manifested
in discriminatory employment practices are and have been subject to legislative
action." The Court stated further, "The provisions of section
105A.7(l)(c) are not so vague and uncertain as to render that statute unconstitutional."
Thus the question is not one of controlling actions of private individuals
but of guaranteeing the civil rights of a person when violated by a labor
union.
Respondents also alleged that the Iowa Civil Rights Act is an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative power (to the Iowa Civil Rights Commissi0n).
The Court said, "On the question of power delegation we recently held
the important consideration is . . . whether the procedure established for
the exercise of power furnishes adequate safeguards for those affected by
the administrative action." The Court continued, "Sections 105A.9
and 105A.10 are replete with safeguards protecting respondent." The
Court concluded, "Section 105A.9(12) is not unconstitutional under
the doctrine of undue delegation."
Complaint Filing
The Court dismissed the respondents' charge that Hart was not the proper
party to file a complaint since he himself was not aggrieved. The Court
pointed out that "An employer is specifically empowered to file complaint
when its employees refuse or threaten to refuse to comply with the provisions
of chapter 105A (105A.9(2))." The Court stressed that the main function
of the complaint is to trigger an investigation and if probable cause is
found, conference, conciliation and persuasion are to follow. The agency
will decide if litigation is necessary. The Court held that "Enough
loss and damage was sustained by Weitz as a result of respondents' conduct
to permit it to fall within the legal definition of an 'aggrieved person."'
The Court thus upheld the broad definition of who can file a complaint.
In so doing it reiterated from the Act that the complaint merely starts
an investigation, that when cause is found conciliation is to be held, and
that the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has the authority to decide if conciliation
has failed and litigation is necessary.
Contents of Complaint
Respondents also claimed that the Commission decision was not in accord
with the complaint and the evidence. The Court dismissed this allegation
saying that all of the other parts (other than damages) of the order were
within the bounds of the complaint and statutory authority of the Commission.
The Court reminded the respondents that the manner in which this administrative
agency (the Commission) proceeded was " . . . foundationed upon a legislative
enactment designed more to implement broad public policy than to adjudicate
differences between private parties." The Court held that all that
is required (of a complaint) is that it give sufficient information to enable
the administrative agency to discern what the grievance is about. The Court
stated further, "This type of complaint was not designed for the sophisticated
. . . , but to protect equality of opportunity among all employees and prospective
employees. This protection must be extended to even the most unsophisticated
and inarticulate." The Commission's complaint was thus upheld in its
form, contents, and specificity.
Evidence
Another question raised was in regard to whether the evidence in the case
justified the Commission's decision and order. The Court said that Reed's
actions and the actions of the Ironworkers' journeymen in staging the sick-out
speak . . . with a force which cannot be quieted." It noted further,
"Other testimony of 'hostility' and discouragement of [N]egroes is
convincing." The Court continued, "In racial discrimination cases,
statistics often demonstrate more than the testimony of many witnesses,
and should be given proper .effect by the courts. * * * We cannot reasonably
believe only one [N]egro would apply for permit or apprentice training in
the almost 60 years of this union's history prior to April 1969, unless
[B]lacks were being subjected to discrimination, however invidious."
On this question the Court concluded, "Therefore, Commission was authorized
to enjoin such behavior, which it did, and to order such affirmative action
'as in the judgement of the [C]ommission shall effectuate the purposes of
this chapter."'
Testing
One of the more far-reaching and important sections of the Ironworkers decision
deals with testing. The Commission' order required the suspension of the
union's tests, including those used in the apprenticeship program (both
for entry and advancement), until the tests had been validated for jobrelatedness
and cultural bias. The tests were to be professionally developed. The Commission
has contended for some time that tests tend to bear more heavily on minorities
because of cultural and societal reasons (which are related to past discrimination).
The Commission has also been very suspicious of the arbitrary and indiscriminate
use of such devices as high school diplomas and other degree requirements
as essential criteria for getting a job, where there is no proof that these
devices provide a more capable employee.
The Court commented on both the use of tests and degree requirements, as
it declared, "The inadequacy of broad and general testing devices as
well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of
capability has been judicially noted [e.g., in the federal courts, Griggs
v. Duke Power Co.] together with their capacity for subtle discrimination."
In this fashion the Court upheld those portions of the Commission's order
relating to testing and test validation. As such it also strengthened the
Commission's position with regard to testing and degree requirements, and
with regard to the absolute necessity for having tests and other employee
selection criteria validated for cultural bias and job-relatedness.
Recruitment to Remedy Past Discrimination
The Court advised the respondents regarding some erroneous assumptions they
had made in attacking the affirmative portions of the Commission's order.
In so doing the Court offered some additional insights into its interpretation
of the Civil Rights Act. It said that the Act must be interpreted as aimed
at correcting a broader pattern of behavior, rather than merely remedying
a specific dispute. In the case at hand "It was the practice of discrimination,
not merely the humiliation of Roe, at which the Commission and trial court
took aim in this decree," the Court advised.
In discussing remedies regarding past discrimination the Court turned its
attention to apprenticeship programs saying, "A nondiscriminatory inclusion
of blacks in union's work permit and apprenticeship programs should provide
impact in dislodging rigid patterns of past discrimination. * * * The union's
obligation to contact members of minority groups is appropriate to insure
the elimination of the effects of the past. * * * These provisions of the
decree are reasonable steps to be taken to inform minority community that
all persons are now treated equally by Local 67 with respect to race, color
or creed."
The Court thus affirms the necessity for corrective action to modify the
effects of past discrimination. Such actions should include specific efforts
to contact minority group members so that all people have an equal chance
to apply for entry into the apprenticeship programs and for obtaining work
permits. If this is not done past patterns of discrimination will never
be changed.
Reporting
The Court also held that requiring Local 67 to periodically report on its
activities regarding minorities was necessary) when it said, "Mandatory
records and reports, authorized by section 105A.9(12), reasonably insure
compliance with the decree."
Damages
In responding to the charge questioning the Commission's authority to grant
compensatory damages the Supreme Court reversed the district court and the
Commission's order. The district court had affirmed the Commission's broad
authority "to require whatever action is necessary to undo the discriminatory
practice and assure the end of it," noting that, "money damages
are contemplated (in the law)."
However, the Iowa Supreme Court advised that if viewed as a vehicle to litigate
questions of compensatory damages, the nature of the statute creating the
Commission and its procedures
is unsatisfactory. The Court stated further, "As it bore on the correction
of specific objectionable practice, Commission's order [decreeing both prohibitive
and affirmative action with respect
to this problem] was within the statute . . . But Commission also attempted
to fix damages in a collateral matter for a corporation which had not been
discriminated against because of its
race, creed, color, sex, national origin, or religion. In this, Commission
had exceeded its statutory authority. A judgement for the employer does
not affirmatively make [Nlegroes more welcome in Local 67." The Court
stated further, "We hold Commission has no authority under §105A.9(12)
to enter judgement for compensatory damages per se." (emphasis added)
The Court thus affirmed the Commission's broad powers to order both prohibitive
and affirmative action. However, compensatory damages could not be awarded:
where a corporation was not discriminated against because of its race, creed,
color, sex, national origin, or religion; where the action would not have
an affirmative effect, as in making Negroes more welcome; or where the damages
were granted per se, i.e., unconnected with other matters.