IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - Officials in Iowa City did not violate a landlord’s constitutional rights by enforcing an employment discrimination ordinance that was later ruled invalid, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The ruling means taxpayers do not have to pay the landlord any damages or attorneys’ fees, likely ending a 12-year dispute that twice went to the state’s highest court.
The case started with a simple job advertisement, and things quickly escalated from there.
John and Valerie Baker live out of state and own a downtown rental property, which was the childhood home of John Baker. They hire one tenant as a property manager to collect rent and perform necessary maintenance. When that job opened in 2003, they advertised for the position.
The Bakers rejected one single mother who applied for housing and the job after she did not submit the required references and said her 11-year-old son would perform the outdoor maintenance required. The Bakers said they were worried that arrangement would violate child labor laws and declined to hire the woman, who is black. She then filed a complaint under the city’s human rights ordinance, which bans discrimination in employment and housing.
An investigator for the city’s human rights commission found probable cause that discrimination occurred based on the applicant’s race and marital status. While the case was pending, the Bakers went to court to challenge the city ordinance as unconstitutional.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the ordinance overstepped the city’s authority because it did not exempt employers such as the Bakers who have less than four workers, as required by state law. The city quickly amended the ordinance to make that exemption, which is meant to shield small businesses from burdensome regulation.
By then, the Bakers had reached a settlement with the job applicant. But they continued the civil lawsuit, alleging the city’s enforcement of the invalid ordinance violated their federal constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association, due process and equal protection. They sought an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys’ fees that amounted to $71,000 before the latest appeal.
While the ordinance directly conflicted with state law, the city’s enforcement against the Bakers “does not rise to the level of violating federal constitutional rights,” Justice David Wiggins wrote in a 7-0 ruling.
“The city has a legitimate interest in attempting to eradicate discrimination in employment so that its citizens do not receive disadvantageous treatment because of their identification within certain groups,” he wrote.
Assistant city attorney Susan Dulek said she was happy with the ruling and to have the case over “in all likelihood.” But she said the decision “quite frankly doesn’t mean anything” for the city’s enforcement efforts moving forward since the ordinance has been amended to exempt small employers.
The Bakers’ attorney didn’t immediately return a message.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.