Nicole Lara Shumate v. Drake University A/K/A Drake University Law School
846 N.W.2d 503
Iowa2014Background
- Shumate, a non-disabled service-dog trainer, sued Drake University alleging denial of access for a dog in training under Iowa Code chapter 216C.
- 216C.11(2) grants access rights for service dogs/assistive animals but does not expressly provide a private right to sue.
- The district court dismissed, holding no implied private action; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
- The supreme court reaffirmed the Cort four-factor test to determine implied private rights of action, focusing on legislative intent.
- Court concluded 216C.11(2) does not create an implied private right to sue because private remedies exist in related chapters (216 and 216E) and would bypass the ICRA procedures.
- Thus the district court’s dismissal was correct; the court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 216C.11(2) implicitly create a private right to sue? | Shumate argues for an implied right to sue under 216C.11(2). | Drake argues there is no private right to sue; Cort factors show no intent to create one. | No private right to sue; Cort factors indicate lack of legislative intent. |
| Is legislative intent to create a private remedy satisfied? | Shumate asserts the statute's purpose permits enforcement through private action. | Drake contends no such intent; related chapters show explicit private remedies when intended. | Not satisfied; legislature did not intend a private remedy under 216C. |
| Would recognizing a private action under 216C.11(2) conflict with ICRA or existing remedies? | Shumate would not interfere with ICRA procedures since trainers are not protected by ICRA. | Implied action would circumvent ICRA and create inconsistent enforcement with 216E and 216. | Yes, would conflict; implies private action would undermine ICRA framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1975) (four-factor test for implied private rights of action)
- Seeman v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 322 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1982) (adopted Cort framework in Iowa)
- Mueller v. Well-mark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012) (reaffirmed Cort-based approach in Iowa)
- Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285 (Iowa 1995) (discussed Cort factors and legislative intent)
- Engstrom v. State, 461 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1990) (legislative intent in private rights analysis)
- Redington v. Touche Ross & Co., 442 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1979) (central to Cort-based inference of intent)
- Hall v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 N.W.2d 421 (Iowa 1977) (civil remedies may arise from criminal statute under certain intent)
- Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C., 832 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 2013) (notes on ICRA right-to-sue framework and remedies)