Opinion ID: 2040858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Untimely Amendment.

Text: The commission and Rotary contend that the commission lacked jurisdiction of District 561, because there was an untimely amendment to add it as a party to the proceedings. Ms. Good commenced the administrative proceeding by filing a complaint with the commission on May 19, 1977, naming as parties Clayton Christensen, District Governor 597 and the Regional Office of Rotary International. (Although chairman of the group study exchange committee for District 5 61, Christensen's correspondence with Good was on a letterhead showing he was District Governor 5 97 (1970-1971). This apparently was the reason for erroneously naming District 597.). The commission began its investigation of the complaint and, in October 1977, Good filed an amendment to her complaint, naming District 561 as a party since the alleged discriminatory acts took place in that district. On December 29, 1977, the commission found probable cause to proceed with the complaint. Five months later, plaintiff further amended her complaint to add additional parties, including several rotary clubs, the Rotary Foundation, and Rotary International. The commission attempted conciliation in June of 1978. It was unsuccessful, however, and the case proceeded to hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation deleting the various rotary organizations previously added by amendment. Specifically, it provided: [the matter] shall proceed based only upon the original Complaint file on May 19, 1977.... and that the only respondents shall be those named in the caption above. The intended effect of the stipulation, according to petitioner, was to retain only those parties who had been directly involved in the alleged discrimination. The actual effect, however, was far more significant: it effectively eliminated District 561, where the alleged discrimination had occurred, as a named party in the complaint. (Only District 597 and the regional office had been named in the original complaint.). Two months later, in July of 1981, more than four years after the filing of the original complaint, plaintiff once again amended her complaint, this time specifying that District 561 had always been an intended party in the proceedings. Petitioner argues that District 561 was misidentified in the original complaint as the regional office, and the amendment was, therefore, merely the correction of an inadvertent error. The commission and Rotary, on the other hand, claim that this was the first time that they had notice that District 561 was a party to these proceedings. The amendment prompted a special appearance on behalf of District 561, based upon its claim that the amendment was not timely, and therefore the commission was without jurisdiction over it. Iowa Code section 601A.14(15) (1977), which was in effect at the time, required a complaint to be filed within 120 days of the alleged discriminatory act. Despite the fact that District 561 was actually named in the proceedings after the 120-day period for asserting such a claim, it was in fact participating in them from the very beginning. We agree with Good that amending the complaint to add District 561 was not tantamount to filing an original complaint against it. It was already deeply involved in the matter and had been since its inception. The amendment only made the face of the complaint reflect the true status of the case. Despite our deference to administrative interpretations of a statute, as we discuss later, we disagree with the commission and the district court on this issue. We conclude that District 561 was properly added as a party to these proceedings. See Buchholtz v. Iowa Department of Public Instruction, 315 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 1982).