Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dennis Smith was formerly employed by the College of Engineering at Iowa State University (ISU), where he was “subjected to wrongful conduct for an extended period of time in a job he had held for nearly a decade.” Smith filed suit against ISU and the State, alleging, inter alia, that he suffered retaliation for reporting managerial misconduct to ISU’s president. After a jury trial, Smith recovered $500,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $784,027 under a whistleblowing statute. The court of appeals affirmed the intentional infliction of emotional distress award but set aside the statutory whistleblowing award, finding that Smith had failed to prove a causal relationship between his disclosures to the president and any actions of reprisal taken against him. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the jury’s emotional distress award, holding that Defendants’ conduct toward Smith was outrageous and that the verdict was not excessive; and (2) reduced, but did not set aside, the district court’s award of damages under the whistleblowing statute, where the evidence supported the finding that Smith suffered retaliation for reporting managerial misconduct but where Smith’s loss of his job was not causally linked to his discussion with ISU’s president. View "Smith v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, fourteen African-Americans, brought a class action suit against the State, including thirty-seven different executive branch departments, under the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the State unlawfully discriminates against African Americans in employment. The district court entered judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that the underlying documents did not provide sufficient information to allow employment practices to be separated for meaningful statistical analysis, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.View "Pippen v. State" on Justia Law

John Goodpaster worked as a customer service manager for Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., the largest home delivery frozen foods company in the nation, at Schwan’s Des Moines location. Goodpaster’s duty was to sell and deliver company products, and a basic requirement of Goodpaster’s job was that he drive a commercial vehicle. When Goodpaster began experiencing medical problems, his sales began to decrease, and he was eventually terminated. Goodpaster sued Schwan’s under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) for disability discrimination and retaliation, claiming his employment was terminated because he had multiple sclerosis. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schwan’s. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) multiple sclerosis is a disability contemplated by the ICRA; and (2) a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Goodpaster was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position. Remanded. View "Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

AFSCME Iowa Council 61, which represents certain State employees in collective bargaining, entered into negotiations with the State regarding its 2013-2015 collective bargaining agreement. The State proposed deleting certain contract provisions from the existing contract that addressed outsourcing of work performed by public employees. AFCME disputed the State’s classification of this provision as a permissive bargaining subject, arguing that the provision was a procedure for staff reduction and therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Iowa Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) concluded that the predominate purpose of the proposal was to designate a process for implementing a staff reduction due to outsourcing, and therefore, the proposal was subject to mandatory bargaining. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) to the extent the primary purpose of the proposal was to preclude the State from reducing staff in response to outsourcing, it was a permissive rather than a mandatory subject of bargaining; but (2) if, on remand, PERB determined that the State was permitted to reduce employment resulting from outsourcing, then the proposal may be found to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. View "AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State, Dep’t of Admin. Servs." on Justia Law

After taking self-care leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with the State. A jury found the State terminated Plaintiff in violation of her rights under the FMLA. The district court awarded Plaintiff money damages and ordered the State to reinstate Plaintiff to her former position. The State appealed and successfully requested a stay of Plaintiff’s reinstatement pending the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently held that sovereign immunity precluded Plaintiff’s judgment for money damages against the State. On remand, the district court once again ordered Plaintiff reinstated and awarded lost wages and benefits from the date of the original reinstatement order, concluding that the State had waived its sovereign immunity by seeking a stay of the reinstatement order and promising to pay Plaintiff’s interim wages and benefits if the Court affirmed the original order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s pleadings were sufficient to preserve her right to Ex parte Young remedies, and the parties litigated the reinstatement remedy by consent; and (2) the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not bar an award of wages and benefits for the period during which a reinstatement order was stayed. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, James House began working as a commercial truck driver for Mike Brooks, Inc. In 2007, House slipped and fell in any icy parking lot while retrieving cargo and injured his back. House returned to work but experienced regular back pain after doing so. In 2008, House pushed open a heavy door and experienced an increase in pain and a burning sensation in the area of his 2007 back injury. House filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits. A deputy commissioner found House had sustained a permanent total disability (PTD) and rejected Brooks’ contention that the 2008 incident resulted in an injury distinct from the 2007 injury. The commissioner affirmed the award of PTD benefits, including the finding that House’s injury and resulting PTD were caused by the 2007 incident. The district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the commissioner’s finding of causation was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the causation finding made by the commissioner. View "Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House" on Justia Law

As a condition of her employment, Employee signed an agreement to arbitrate claims with Employer. Employee later filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), alleging that Employer had discriminated against her because of her pregnancy. The ICRC subsequently filed a statement of charges with the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA). Employer filed a motion to dismiss the ICRC’s charges or, in the alternative, compel arbitration. The DIA denied Employer’s motion on the ground that ICRC was not a party to the arbitration agreement and, consequently, not bound by it. On judicial review, the district court remanded instructions for the ICRC to dismiss the matter pending arbitration by the parties, concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted state law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the FAA did not require arbitration of this proceeding because it was brought by an entity that was not bound to arbitrate under generally applicable principles of contract law, where the ICRC was not a party to the agreement and its interest was not derivative of Employee’s. View "Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of BNSF Railway Company, was injured due to the railroad’s negligence. Because of his injury, Plaintiff was no longer able to work at his job. Plaintiff, who was almost fifty-nine years old, sued BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) seeking $755,000 in economic damages, claiming that he planned to work until he was sixty-six years old. BNSF, in turn, attempted to introduce evidence that Plaintiff was eligible to retire on full benefits at age sixty and that most railroad employees in Plaintiff’s position retire at age sixty. The district court excluded the railroad’s evidence based on its reading of the federal collateral source rule applicable to FELA cases. A jury subsequently awarded $1.25 million, including pain and suffering, to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding (1) when a railroad employee makes a claim of lost earning capacity based on a hypothetical retirement age, federal law does not bar the introduction of evidence as to when railroad employees in the plaintiff’s position typically retire; and (2) BNSF was improperly precluded from presenting this excluded statistical evidence, and the error was not harmless. View "Giza v. BNSF Ry. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner was a middle school teacher involved in a physical altercation with a student. The Iowa Board of Educational Examiners issued a statement of charges against Petitioner alleging student abuse. The Board subsequently imposed a ninety-day suspension of Petitioner's teaching license and permanent revocation of his physical education and coaching endorsements. Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review in district court within thirty days of the Board's denial of his application for rehearing but before the Board's final decision on the State's application for rehearing. The district court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision on the merits. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Petitioner's "premature" petition never invoked the district court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the proper time to file a petition for judicial review is within thirty days after the agency's final decision on the last application granted for rehearing; and (2) Petitioner initially appealed prematurely before the Board's final decision on the State's rehearing application, but he later perfected his appeal to the district court. View "Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Examiners" on Justia Law

Douglas Moad was driving his truck within the course of his employment with Employer when his truck was struck by an oncoming vehicle. Douglas died from his injuries. Employer maintained workers' compensation services with Dakota Truck Underwriters (DTU), a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business in South Dakota. Employer also maintained motorist liability coverage with Northland Insurance Company (Northland). Douglas and his wife Sharon maintained insurance coverage with Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (Hartford). Sharon filed a petition seeking damages from Northland and Hartford for uninsured motorist benefits. DTU filed a notice of subrogation lien, asserting that it was entitled to reimbursement from any proceeds obtained by Sharon as a result of the damages action. Sharon reached a settlement agreement with Northland and Hartford. The district court approved the settlement and granted Sharon's motion to extinguish DTU's lien, concluding that in the event DTU's untimely filing of notice of its lien did not bar its interest, Iowa law applied and barred DTU's recovery. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court utilized the wrong standard in resolving the conflict of laws question. View "Moad v. Dakota Truck Underwriters, Risk Admin. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law