Britney Tibodeau v. Cdi, LLC
16-0560
Iowa Ct. App.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Tibodeau worked for CDI in 2013, took medical leave for depression/anxiety, attempted suicide while on leave, received treatment, and returned to work.
- While employed she was subjected to pervasive sexually offensive co-worker conduct; she resigned after her boyfriend (also an employee) was fired; jury found constructive discharge and liability against CDI.
- Tibodeau filed a timely administrative complaint and received a right-to-sue release; she sued within 90 days but the action was transferred for venue and briefly dismissed/reinstated over a dispute about payment of transfer costs.
- CDI appealed multiple trial rulings after a jury awarded back pay and emotional distress damages and the district court awarded front pay and attorney fees.
- Issues on appeal included: application of the savings/statute-of-limitations rules to the dismissal/reinstatement, exclusion of evidence of Tibodeau’s marijuana use, alleged counsel misconduct (mistrial/new trial), jury instructions (eggshell plaintiff and aggravation), and alleged juror misconduct regarding insurance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations / savings statute | Tibodeau: reinstated action is continuation of the original, timely under §216.16 and savings provision | CDI: dismissal and reinstatement happened after the 90‑day filing period, so action is time‑barred | Court: savings/statute issue resolved for plaintiff — dismissal/reinstatement did not bar action; no negligence in prosecution; action treated as continuous; judgment affirmed |
| Exclusion of marijuana-use evidence | Tibodeau: drug-use evidence marginal and cumulative; counsel otherwise argued mitigation/damage challenges at trial | CDI: marijuana use while employed was relevant to perception and damages (mitigation, medication efficacy) | Court: exclusion was within discretion under Rule 5.403; probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Counsel misconduct — mistrial / new trial | Tibodeau: closing and evidentiary presentations were proper or cured by instructions | CDI: golden rule appeal, misstatements of record, improper references to other harassment claims inflated jury | Court: district court did not abuse discretion; objections sustained and curative instructions given; plaintiff's evidence strong; no prejudicial misconduct warranting new trial |
| Jury instructions — eggshell plaintiff & aggravation | Tibodeau: eggshell and aggravation instructions appropriate given preexisting depression and evidence of exacerbation | CDI: insufficient evidence the preexisting depression was dormant; submitting both instructions without explanatory language was erroneous | Court: eggshell instruction supported by evidence; failure to give additional Waits clarification not preserved (no timely objection); no reversible error |
| Juror misconduct — insurance influence | Tibodeau: no admissible juror affidavits showing external influence; issues concern internal deliberations | CDI: investigator affidavits suggested jurors considered defendant’s insurance when awarding damages | Held: Court refused to probe internal deliberations; affidavits insufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Burlington N., Inc., 587 N.W.2d 462 (Iowa 1998) (standard for reviewing legal error)
- Furnald v. Hughes, 804 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 2011) (purpose of savings statutes and preventing technical forfeiture)
- Shawhan v. Polk Cty., 420 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1988) (evidence of drug use in non‑drug cases often unfairly prejudicial)
- State v. Rodriguez, 636 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2001) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 2000) (untenable reasons warrant reversal)
- Ward v. Loomis Bros., 532 N.W.2d 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (drug use admissible when directly related to incident or damages)
- Waits v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 572 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1997) (eggshell and aggravation instruction interaction and need for clarifying language)
- State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 734 (Iowa 2006) (golden rule arguments and limits on appeals to jurors' emotions)
- Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391 (Iowa 1970) (new trial required for prejudicial counsel misconduct only if prejudice shown)