Stephanie Juehring, Complainant

VS.

PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER

Scott County Civil Service Commission, Respondent.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. It is well-established that the Commission has the sole discretion to determine whether it is necessary take a complaint to hearing, i.e. the Complainant does not have a role in determining if litigation is necessary. Iowa Code 601 A. 15(5) (1989). See Iron Workers Local No. 67 v. Hart, 191 N.W.2d 758, 766 (Iowa 1971)(Agency decides if litigation is necessary; Complainant's importance as an adversary party not established by the statute). The Commission has the discretion to select cases for prosecution which will, in its view, "better impact unfair or discriminatory practices." Estabrook v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission, 283 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Iowa 1979). Based on this authority, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Commission not only has broad discretion to determine whether it wishes to initiate the prosecution of a case, it also has broad discretion to determine whether it wishes to continue the prosecution of a particular case. The Commission may, for example, dismiss a case if it cannot obtain the cooperation of a Complainant which is required for successful prosecution. Cf. Ronald Lewis, CP# 03-84-11456, Order (Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n. April 18, 1989)(Case dismissed due to Complainant's failure to obey Commission discovery order to produce income tax returns).

2. In light of these authorities, either the withdrawal of a complaint by the Complainant, or the Complainant's informing the Commission's representative that she has withdrawn the complaint, combined with a failure of the Complainant to resist a motion to dismiss based on the communication, constitutes sufficient reason for dismissal of the case even though the Complainant did not join in the request for dismissal.

3. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the Commission grant the Motion to Dismiss.