BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

DIANE HUMBURD, Complainant,

VS.

MARY A. HARLAN and VIRGIL G. HARLAN, Respondents.

PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on the Complaint filed by Diane Humburd against the Respondents Virgil G. Harlan and Mary A. Harlan alleging discrimination on the basis of race in public accommodations. Specifically, Ms. Humburd alleges that the Respondents denied her child care services on the basis of her race.

A public hearing on this complaint was held on February 16, 1989 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge, at the Commission's office in Des Moines, Iowa. The case in support of the complaint was presented by Rick Autry, Assistant Attorney General. The Complainant, Diane Humburd, was represented by Herbert Rogers, Sr., Attorney at Law. The Respondent, Mary A. Harlan, was represented by Michael Jankins, Attorney at Law. The Respondent Virgil S. Harlan did not appear.

During the course of the hearing, a motion for default judgment against Respondent Virgil Harlan was made on behalf of the Commission. A motion to dismiss was also made on behalf of Respondent Mary Harlan. Rulings on these motions will be incorporated in this decision.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated in this contested case decision in accordance with Iowa Code § 17A.16(l) (1989). 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 1 7A. 16(1 ).

The Iowa Civil Rights Act requires that the existence of racial discrimination be determined in light of the record as a whole. See Iowa Code § 601A.15(8) (1989). 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.