MATTHEWS, Senior Justice.
This appeal presents the question whether the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (the Commission) must interview one or more witnesses identified by a complainant before dismissing a complaint for lack of substantial evidence to support a discrimination claim. We conclude that the statutory duty to impartially investigate implies that the Commission must make a reasonable effort to interview at least some of the witnesses identified by a complainant where it appears that they may have relevant information. We also conclude that this duty was not satisfied here because the Commission did not interview any of the witnesses identified by the complainant even though they potentially had relevant information.
William M. Toliver II is an African-American man in his sixties; he has litigated pro se
On August 21, 2007, Toliver entered Store 32 and was approached by the assistant manager, Crystal Dockter. After a heated verbal exchange of some sort, Dockter "86ed" — banned — Toliver from Store 32. In the store's incident log for that evening, Dockter wrote that she had banned Toliver "for causing problems and for cursing me out." Toliver later disputed this version of events. He continued to shop at Store 55, where he was not banned.
In late June 2008 Toliver called O.C. Madden III, Brown Jug's vice-president for human resources, and complained that Brown Jug was discriminating against him and other members of racial minority groups in Mountain View. Madden and Ed O'Neill — Brown Jug's co-owner — invited Toliver to meet with them in person at their offices. During the meeting Toliver expressed frustration over Dockter's behavior and stated that members of the Mountain View community considered Store 32 to be a "[w]hites only" store.
Madden and O'Neill spoke with their staff in response to Toliver's allegations. They eventually told Toliver that he would be allowed to continue shopping at Store 55 but would be banned from Store 32. Madden and O'Neill also organized a public meeting at a community center to address Toliver's claim that members of the Mountain View community believed Brown Jug employees had racially discriminated against them. Toliver distributed notices of the meeting around Mountain View, which stated:
Toliver also circulated a petition in the days leading up to the meeting. In it he referred to his experience of "true disrespect and racism" in a Mountain View Brown Jug store, noted that O'Neil and Madden wanted a meeting to resolve this problem, and asked for signatures from community members who felt they were also victims of "racism, disrespect, etc." At least 24 individuals signed the petition.
The meeting took place on June 30, 2008. Employees from Stores 32 and 55, including Dockter, were in attendance. After the meeting, Madden and O'Neill instructed employees to handle customers respectfully.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Brown Jug representatives reiterated that Toliver would be allowed to shop at Store 55, but not at Store 32. Immediately after the community meeting, Toliver attempted to purchase alcohol at Store 55. The clerk on duty, who was filling in while the other employees attended the community meeting, was unaware that Toliver was permitted to shop at Store 55 and prevented him from making a purchase.
On three occasions in August 2008, Toliver entered Store 32 and attempted to purchase alcohol. In each instance, a clerk told him he was banned from Store 32 but could shop at Store 55. After the last of these encounters, on August 30, 2008, a clerk recorded an account of the event in the incident log:
On August 29, 2008, Toliver filed a complaint with the Commission. He alleged that Brown Jug had denied him "rights and privileges as a customer" on the basis of race.
On December 5, 2008, Brown Jug filed a letter with the Commission responding to Toliver's complaint. Brown Jug contended that Toliver's allegations were "meritless" and "unsupported" and that the facts showed "Brown Jug refused service to Toliver at one of its stores after Toliver verbally abused and physically threatened the store's assistant
After receiving Brown Jug's statement of position the investigator assigned by the Commission to the case called Toliver to review Brown Jug's position statement with him. Toliver denied threatening or cursing at Dockter. Toliver mentioned the manager at Brown Jug Store 55, Richard Senior, as a potential witness, alleging that Senior had told Toliver that he thought what was occurring was wrong. Toliver also stated that the manager at Store 32 "shook his head and said what the heck is going on here." Toliver further stated that the people who had signed the petition were also witnesses.
On December 10, 2008, the investigator wrote to Brown Jug's attorney requesting copies of incident logs and information about, among other things, Brown Jug's policy for denying customer service. She also requested interviews with Dockter, Madden, O'Neill, and the managers of Stores 32 and 55. The investigator did interview Dockter and Madden, but did not interview Senior (the manager of Store 55), nor the manager of Store 32, nor any of the individuals who signed Toliver's petition.
On April 21, 2009, the investigator issued a written determination based on her investigation. She concluded that Toliver was denied the right to shop at Brown Jug Store 32 "because he verbally abused and threatened employees." She observed that customers of other races had been denied service for similar reasons and that the evidence did not show that Toliver was denied service because of his race. The investigator reviewed the determination with Toliver, who vigorously disputed the version of events advanced by Brown Jug and again alleged that Senior had agreed banning Toliver from Store 32 was wrong.
Ultimately, the investigator concluded that Toliver's allegations were "not supported by substantial evidence." On the same day that this report was issued, the executive director of the Commission issued an order closing the case because the "[i]nvestigation did not find substantial evidence to support allegations in the complaint."
Toliver appealed the closing order to the superior court, arguing in part that the investigation was incomplete because the investigator did not interview any of the individuals who signed Toliver's petition. The superior court affirmed the order in a seven-page written decision. The court concluded that it was not necessary for the investigator to interview the petitioners because "the record does not demonstrate that any of the petitioners on the list were present when Toliver's incidents occurred."
"We review de novo questions of law, including the interpretation of a statute, adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy."
Toliver appeals pro se, and his brief mainly sets out his version of the facts. But we consider pro se pleadings liberally in an effort to determine what legal claims have been raised.
As explained below, we conclude that the staff had a duty to conduct an impartial investigation before dismissing Toliver's complaint for lack of substantial evidence and that it failed to comply with this duty. These conclusions make it unnecessary to decide whether the investigation uncovered substantial evidence of discrimination. Following the additional investigation after remand the
The investigatory duties of the Commission
The investigation serves as the basis for further agency action. Thus if the investigation discovers substantial evidence of discrimination the investigator is required to eliminate or remedy it "by conference, conciliation and persuasion."
The policies and purposes of the Human Rights Act
Because of this strong statement of policy we have consistently construed the Human Rights Act broadly "to further the goal of eradication of discrimination."
Courts in New York, which has a statutory human rights system very similar to Alaska's, have reached a similar conclusion. The New York Human Rights Division is required to make a "prompt and fair investigation" of each complaint filed before it,
Here, the Commission's investigation consisted of an intake interview with Toliver, interviews with Dockter and Madden, and a few telephone conversations with Toliver that he initiated. Significantly, the investigator did not interview any of the individuals who, according to Toliver, would corroborate his claim of discrimination.
Further, it is unclear why the investigator retreated from her stated intention to interview the managers of Stores 55 and 32. Her failure to interview Senior — the manager of Store 55 — is particularly troubling. Toliver alleged that Senior had agreed that Brown Jug's actions were racially motivated. If verified, Senior's agreement would mark him as a witness who has potentially relevant information. We conclude, therefore, that as a result of its failure to make an effort to interview at least some of the witnesses identified by Toliver, the Commission breached its duty to conduct an impartial investigation.
The Commission's regulations authorize it to "determine the nature and scope" of each investigation.
We REVERSE the decision of the superior court and REMAND this case to the superior court for REMAND to the Commission with instructions to fulfill its duty to complete an impartial investigation and to take further appropriate action. We do not retain jurisdiction.
