Mills v. Iowa Board of Regents
770 F. Supp. 2d 986
S.D. Iowa2011Background
- Mills filed an August 2, 2010 petition in Johnson County District Court against the Board of Regents, State, University, Bryant, Stolar, Mason, and Campbell.
- Mills, the University’s General Counsel from August 2005 to September 2008, was terminated September 23, 2008 after the Stolar report.
- An October–November 2007 University investigation into a student sexual assault involved multiple University departments; Mills provided legal advice but did not oversee the investigation.
- Intervening communications in November 2007–June 2008 included Regent Gartner’s information requests and Evans’ later internal-complaint responses; a September 18, 2008 Stolar report criticized lack of transparency and Mills’ role.
- Mills’ eight-count complaint includes §1983 claims (Counts I, II, VI) against the University and Mason, defamation/false light (Count III), breach of contract (Count IV), wage claim (Count V), liberty interest (Count VI), intentional interference (Count VII), and a purported blacklisting claim (Count VIII).
- Defendants moved to dismiss various counts; the magistrate judge later summarized rulings that led to dismissal of several counts and substitution issues under Iowa’s ITCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board of Regents should be dismissed at 12(b)(6). | Board involvement merits ongoing consideration; role unexplored due to early discovery. | No plausible relief against Board based on pleaded facts. | Board of Regents is dismissed. |
| Whether §1983 claims against the University and Mason/Campbell in official capacities survive. | Counts I, II, VI may seek injunctive relief and individual-capacity claims remain. | §1983 claims against the University are barred; official-capacity monetary claims barred; only individual-capacity or prospective-relief claims may survive. | Counts I, II, VI dismissed to the extent of official-capacity/monetary relief; liability limited to individual-capacity or prospective relief. |
| Whether Counts III and VII are barred by the ITCA sovereign-immunity exemptions. | Defamation and interference claims are outside ITCA exemptions. | Claims collapse into bar by 669.14(4) for libel/slander and related torts; state immunity applies. | Counts III and VII converted to State claims are barred under 669.14(4); substitution applies and shield applies. |
| Whether Mills’ false light claim in Count III survives given the defamation framework. | False light is a separate privacy tort not identical to defamation. | False light is the functional equivalent of defamation and barred by 669.14(4). | False light claim barred as arising out of defamation; not cognizable under ITCA. |
| Whether Count VIII blacklisting claim is properly brought under the ITCA and viable. | Count VIII seeks personal-injury-like relief for career harm not exempted. | Claim is the functional equivalent of interference with contract and falls within 669.14(4) bar; ITCA applies to state entity. | Count VIII dismissed or treated as improperly filed against the State; as pled, lacks viable ITCA exception relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (sovereign immunity and state-official immunities under §1983)
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (scope-of-employment certification review framework under the Westfall Act)
- Brown v. Armstrong, 949 F.2d 1007 (8th Cir.1991) (certification conclusive for removal vs substitution under related act)
- Area Education Agency 7 v. Bauch, 646 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 2002) (statutory interpretation of ITCA and removal rules)
- Raz v. United States, 343 F.3d 945 (4th Cir.2003) (false light invasion of privacy and FTCA exemptions)