BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
JAMES A. MONTZ, Complainant, and IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION,
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and CITY OF ESTHERVILLE, IOWA, Respondents.
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Iowa Civil Rights
Commission on the Complaint, alleging discrimination on the basis of age
in employment, filed by James A. Montz against the Respondents Civil Service
Commission and City of Estherville, Iowa.
Complainant Montz alleges that the Respondents informed him that there
was a maximum age requirement for the position of police officer whereby
the applicant must not be older than 33 years of age to be considered for
the position. The Respondents' alleged failure to consider or hire him for
the position of police officer due to his age was also tried during the
A five day public hearing on this complaint was held on May 14-17 and
30, 1991 before the Honorable Donald W. Bohlken, Administrative Law Judge,
at Estherville, Iowa. The Complainant, James A. Montz, was represented by
John C. Barrett, Attorney at Law., The Respondents, Civil Service Commission
and City of Estherville, Iowa, were represented by James A. Albert, Attorney
at Law. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission was represented by Teresa Baustian,
Assistant Attorney General.
Initial briefs were filed on July 31, 1991. A reply brief was filed by
the Commission on August 13,1991. A reply brief was filed by the Respondent
on October 11, 1 991.
The findings of act and conclusions of law are
incorporated in this contested case decision in accordance with Iowa Code
Section 17A.1 6(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.16(l).
The Iowa Civil Rights Act requires that the existence of age discrimination
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 o' supporting transcript and exhibit references
should not be interpreted to mean that contrary evidence has been overlooked
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,