BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

ORLANDO RAY DIAL, COMMISSIONER; CRISTEN HARMS, and MIKE DE VOLDER, Complainants,

and

IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION,

VS.


FRIEDMAN MOTORCARS, LTD., MIKE FRIEDMAN, TIM MANNING, GARY FRIEDMAN, SCOTT HENRY, PAT SULLIVAN and CHERYL RUBLE, Respondents.

COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission as three complaints filed by Commissioner Orlando Ray Dial, Cristen Harms, and Mike Devolder.

In Commissioner Dial's complaint (CP # 06-8918956), as amended, he alleges that Respondents Friedman Motorcars Ltd., Mike Friedman, Tim Manning, Scott Henry, and Pat Sullivan engaged in race, sex, and disability discrimination in employment and race discrimination in public accommodations. Specifically, Commissioner Dial alleges that Respondents "treated Black persons, disabled persons, and females less favorably than White persons, nondisabled persons, and males" in "the consideration [and] hiring of applicants for the salesperson position." He also alleges that respondents engaged in sexual and racial harassment. He further alleges that "in the offering [and] providing of services" the Respondents "treated Black persons less favorably than White persons."

In Cristen Harms' complaint (CP # 11-89-19422), she alleges that Respondents Friedman Motorcars Ltd., Gary Friedman, Mike Friedman and Cheryl Ruble engaged in sex discrimination in employment. Specifically, she alleges that she was sexually harassed by Respondent Mike Friedman and constructively discharged on the basis of her sex after Respondents Cheryl Ruble and Gary Friedman failed to take corrective action to end the harassment.

In Mike DeVolder's complaint (CP # 12-89-19466) against Respondents Friedman Motorcars Ltd, Mike Friedman, Scott Henry and Pat Sullivan, he alleges that he was aggrieved by illegal discrimination in employment on the bases of race and sex and that he was subjected to illegal retaliation. Specifically, Mr. Devolder alleges that his "work environment was pervaded by sexual harassment of female employees and customers and racial harassment of Black customers." He also alleges that, he was subjected to physical abuse and terminated "after I complained to management about their mistreatment of women and blacks, and after assisting in the investigation of the harassment and discrimination of women and blacks."

A public hearing on these complaints was held on April 1-5, 1991 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge, at the Conference Room of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in Des Moines, Iowa. The Complainant, Mike DeVolder, was represented by Paul Curtis, Attorney at Law. The Respondents were represented by Patrick Brick, Attorney at Law. Commissioner Orlando Ray Dial and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission were represented by Teresa Baustian, Assistant Attorney General. Complainant Cristen Harms was not represented by counsel.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated in this contested case decision in accordance with Iowa Code § 17A.16(l) (1991). The findings of fact are required to be based solely on evidence in the record and on matters officially noticed in the record. Id. at 17A.12(8). Each conclusion of law must be supported by legal authority or reasoned opinion. Id. at 17A.16(l).

The Iowa Civil Rights Act requires that the existence of race, sex, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation, be determined in light of the record as a whole. See Iowa Code § 601A.15(8) (1991). Therefore, all evidence in the record and matters officially noticed have been carefully reviewed. The use of supporting transcript and exhibit references should not be interpreted to mean that contrary evidence has been overlooked or ignored.

In considering witness credibility, the Administrative Law Judge has carefully scrutinized all testimony, the circumstances under which it was given, and the evidence bolstering or detracting from the believability of each witness. Due consideration has been given to the state of mind and demeanor of each witness while testifying, his or her opportunity to observe and accurately relate the matters discussed, the basis for any opinions given by the witness, whether the testimony has in any meaningful or significant way been supported or contradicted by other testimony or documentary evidence any bias or prejudice of each witness toward the case, and the manner in which each witness will be affected by a particular decision in the case.