Dennis L. Smith v. Iowa State University of Science and Technology and State of Iowa
851 N.W.2d 1
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Dennis Smith, a writer in ISU's College of Engineering, was awarded $1.284M—$500k for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $784,027.40 under Iowa’s whistleblower statute; on appeal, the court affirmed the distress award but vacated part of the whistleblower award.
- The ITCA substituted the State for individual state employees; the issue is whether Smith’s emotional distress claim escapes ITCA immunity and whether the whistleblower damages were properly awarded.
- Key trial facts show a long pattern of management disputes, alleged retaliation, and a 2010 downsizing that eliminated Smith’s position, with causation arguments centered on whether earlier whistleblowing caused later job loss.
- Trial and appellate analysis focus on (a) ITCA exclusivity and defamation-like immunity, (b) whether emotional distress claim is the functional equivalent of an ITCA-excluded tort, (c) whether conduct was outrageous, (d) causation and damages under the whistleblower statute, and (e) validity of reputational damages.
- The majority upholds emotional distress award, denies full whistleblower damages linked to 2007 disclosures, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Concurrences discuss the retaliation theory, with one agreeing in result only on causation and another emphasizing the law-of-the-case status for liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ITCA exclusivity and immunity scope | Smith’s emotional distress claim falls outside ITCA immunity | State argues ITCA immunity bars the claim | IMPLIED: emotional distress not barred by ITCA; exempt coemployee acts allowed |
| Emotional distress elements and outrageousness | Conduct warranted submission; pervasive pattern caused severe distress | Conduct not outrageous enough or not solely causative | Outrageous conduct established; damages affirmed |
| Causation linking whistleblowing to 2010 discharge | Discharge causally linked to Geoffroy reporting | Downsizing and unrelated factors caused discharge | Damages for loss of employment reversed; no causal link found |
| Damages and reputational harm under 70A.28(2) | Reputational damages recoverable; liability proven | Damage scope improper or not preserved for appeal | Reputational damages sustained; employment damages reversed; remand for remedies consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- McGill v. Fish, 790 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 2010) (coemployee gross-negligence claims under ITCA despite substitution)
- Minor v. State, 819 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2012) (intentional infliction claims not barred when broader than enumerated torts)
- Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 2003) (functional equivalence analysis under ITCA)
- Sabow v. United States, 93 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1996) (FTCA § 2680(h) analysis—overlap not dispositive; focus on essential conduct)
- Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (an enumerated tort’s conduct can be broader than a listed one; attention to substance over labels)
- Metz v. United States, 788 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986) (FM weakness of connecting defamation to emotional distress; overlap analysis)
- Edmonds v. United States, 436 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2006) (emotional distress not barred when underlying conduct extends beyond defamation)
- Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 2009) (emotional distress damages in employment cases; range considerations)
- Vinson v. Linn-Mar Cmty. Sch. Dist., 360 N.W.2d 108 (Iowa 1984) (employment conduct requires a high threshold for outrageousness)