BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

JOHN MACK BURTON, Complainant,

VS.

CONTRACT CLEANERS, INC., WALLACE SYKES, and the HENKEL CORPORATION, Respondents.

This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on the amended Complaint filed by John Mack Burton against the Respondents Contract Cleaners, Inc., Wallace Sykes, and the Henkel Corporation alleging discrimination on the bases of race and age in employment.

Complainant Burton alleges that the Respondents Contract Cleaners, Inc., Wallace Sykes, and Henkel Corporation are liable for his discharge from the position of maintenance person due to his age and his race.

A public hearing on this complaint was held on September 5, 1989 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge, at the Conference Room of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission's offices in Des Moines, Iowa. The Complainant, John Burton, was represented by Roger J. Kuhle, Attorney at Law. The Respondent Henkel Corporation was represented by Larry L. Shepler, Attorney at Law. Respondent Wallace Sykes was neither present nor represented. The status of Respondent Contract Cleaners, Inc. will be discussed in the Findings of Fact. 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 race and age 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.