BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION RUTH MILLER (CLAY), Complainant,

VS.

PAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., PAGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, PAGE COUNTY GRIEVANCE REVIEW BOARD, and RON FRANKS, SHERIFF, Respondents.

COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on the Complaint filed by Ruth Miller against the Respondents Page County Sheriff's Department, Page County Board of Supervisors, Page County Grievance Review Board, and Sheriff Ron Franks alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. Ruth Miller filed three discrimination complaints against the Page County Sheriff's Department, the Page County Board of Supervisors, and Sheriff Ron Franks. The second complaint filed also named the Page County Grievance Review Board as a Respondent.

In the first complaint Ms. Miller alleges that, in March 1985, she was never asked if she wanted a shift change to the 4:00 to 12:00 o'clock shift, which was granted to a less senior female who had an affair with Sheriff Franks; that on three or four occasions occurring during the period of March through May 1985, Sheriff Franks made verbal or physical sexual advances toward her which she rejected; that, subsequent to her rejection of these advances, she was twice denied a rotating shift change in May 1985; was given a written reprimand by Sheriff Franks in June 1985; and was denied a previously promised opportunity to work the day shift during the first week of July 1985.

In her second complaint Ms. Miller alleges that, in retaliation for the filing of her first complaint and on the basis of her sex, in August 1985 she was reprimanded for failing to ask the Sheriff or Chief Deputy before arranging for a co-worker to work her shift; was denied the day shift jailer position; and was not given the opportunity to transport a prisoner. Ms. Miller also alleges other discriminatory and retaliatory actions by Sheriff Franks, i.e. that he continued to refuse to fill the day shift jailer position; failed to change her designation to "J-1", failed to call her in for overtime in January 1986; and informed her that she would be expected to rotate weekends with the other jailers. In addition, she alleges that the Board of Supervisors and the Grievance Review Board retaliated against her by denying her grievance concerning shift changes and assignment of "J numbers".

In her third complaint Ms. Miller alleges that, in retaliation for the filing of her first two complaints and on the basis of her sex, she was terminated by Respondents Franks, the Page County Sheriff's Department, and the Board of Supervisors from her position as jailer.

A public hearing on this complaint was held on October 31 and November 1, 1989 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohiken, Administrative Law Judge, at the Page County Courthouse in Clarinda, Iowa. The hearing then resumed on November 3,1989 in the Conference Room of the Public Employees Relations Board in Des Moines, Iowa. The Complainant, Ruth Miller, was not represented by counsel. She waived her right to be present at the last day of the hearing. The Respondents Page County Sheriff's Department, Page County Board of Supervisors, Page County Grievance Review Board, and Sheriff Ron Franks were represented by Richard 0. McConville and Keith E. Uhl, Attorneys at Law. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission was represented by Rick Autry, Assistant Attorney General.

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 17A.16(l).

The Iowa Civil Rights Act requires that the existence of sex discrimination and retaliation 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.