DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965 | Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1114

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Commission on Human Rights, 1964-1965

Iowa Law Review, "State Civil Rights Statute: Some Proposals" Page 1114

1114     IOWA LAW REVIEW     [Vol. 49

groups who may be reticent about doing anything to vindicate their rights.156
   Private damage suits are also a relatively ineffective means of enforcing antidiscrimination statutes because, like criminal fines, the payment of the usually insubstantial or token damages may not operate as a deterrent to prosperous individuals who are strongly committed to a discriminatory course of conduct. The most significant weakness of damage actions is, therefore, that they may not accomplish the real purpose of the statutes in question. Just like the situation where the remedy is a fine, the lawbreaker has the option of recognizing the right or continually denying it and paying money. This means that minority group members may be forced to accept a substitute for a right which they are entitled to share with other members of the public.
   In summation, it should be noted that neither criminal prosecutions nor private civil actions for damages appreciably decrease the incidence of discrimination or give its victims an adequate legal remedy.157 Experience demonstrates that:

     Prosecuting attorneys are reluctant to bring actions under the criminal statutes, and, even when actions are brought, juries are often unwilling to indict or convict. Individuals are often hesitant to make use of civil-action statutes because of the expense, effort, and threat of community opprobrium their use may entail; the difficulty of calculating damages and their inadequacy as a remedy for one whose primary interest is in finding a better home or job indicate that broad reliance upon civil remedies would be misplaced.158

This being so, what kinds of enforcement technique is best suited for antidiscrimination statutes?
   The experience of numerous states and cities indicates that an administrative enforcement of such legislation is the most productive and effective means to achieve the desired results. At least nineteen states, and even more cities, have established administrative agencies charged with the enforcement of one or more civil rights statutes.159
________________________

156 Where available, a private suit for injunction avoids the jury aspects of a damage action, but otherwise suffers the infirmities of civil suits for damages noted in the text. On the use of private suits for injunctive relief in this area, see 24 U. CHI. L. REV. 174 (1956); Note, supra note 155, at 93. Injunctive relief by an injured party based on the Iowa public accommodations or employment statute has not been attempted. There is no reason why such an action should not be available to an injured party if a damage action can be predicated on these penal provisions. Neither the criminal prosecution nor the private action for damages is adequate. See 24 U. CHI. L. REV. 174, 180 (1956).
157 See Note, 39 COLUM. L. REV. 986, 1002 (1939); Note, 84 U. PA. L. REV. 75, 78-79 (1935).
158 Note, The Right to Equal Treatment: Administrative Enforcement of Antidiscrimination Legislation, 74 HARV. L. REV. 526 (1961).
159 The states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana,

Saving...

1114 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49 groups who may be reticent about doing anything to vindicate their rights.156 Private damage suits are also a relatively ineffective means of enforcing antidiscrimination statutes because, like criminal fines, the payment of the usually insubstantial or token damages may not operate as a deterrent to prosperous individuals who are strongly committed to a discriminatory course of conduct. The most significant weakness of damage actions is, therefore, that they may not accomplish the real purpose of the statutes in question. Just like the situation where the remedy is a fine, the lawbreaker has the option of recognizing the right or continually denying it and paying money. This means that minority group members may be forced to accept a substitute for a right which they are entitled to share with other members of the public. In summation, it should be noted that neither criminal prosecutions nor private civil actions for damages appreciably decrease the incidence of discrimination or give its victims an adequate legal remedy.157 Experience demonstrates that: Prosecuting attorneys are reluctant to bring actions under the criminal statutes, and, even when actions are brought, juries are often unwilling to indict or convict. Individuals are often hesitant to make use of civil-action statutes because of the expense, effort, and threat of community opprobrium their use may entail; the difficulty of calculating damages and their inadequacy as a remedy for one whose primary interest is in finding a better home or job indicate that broad reliance upon civil remedies would be misplaced.158 This being so, what kinds of enforcement technique is best suited for antidiscrimination statutes? The experience of numerous states and cities indicates that an administrative enforcement of such legislation is the most productive and effective means to achieve the desired results. At least nineteen states, and even more cities, have established administrative agencies charged with the enforcement of one or more civil rights statutes.159 ________________________ 156 Where available, a private suit for injunction avoids the jury aspects of a damage action, but otherwise suffers the infirmities of civil suits for damages noted in the text. On the use of private suits for injunctive relief in this area, see 24 U. CHI. L. REV. 174 (1956); Note, supra note 155, at 93. Injunctive relief by an injured party based on the Iowa public accommodations or employment statute has not been attempted. There is no reason why such an action should not be available to an injured party if a damage action can be predicated on these penal provisions. Neither the criminal prosecution nor the private action for damages is adequate. See 24 U. CHI. L. REV. 174, 180 (1956). 157 See Note, 39 COLUM. L. REV. 986, 1002 (1939); Note, 84 U. PA. L. REV. 75, 78-79 (1935). 158 Note, The Right to Equal Treatment: Administrative Enforcement of Antidiscrimination Legislation, 74 HARV. L. REV. 526 (1961). 159 The states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana,