2 N.W.3d 437
Iowa2024Background
- Sandra Selden began working at Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) as an Application Support Analyst 2 (ASA 2) in 2013; her starting salary was negotiated to $70,000.
- Selden discovered in 2019 that Bryan Tjaden, a male ASA 2 hired in 1998 with more experience and seniority, was earning substantially more than her ($108,681 vs. $82,292 in FY2019).
- Selden raised an internal complaint about wage equity, which DMACC said was justified by Tjaden’s greater seniority and higher entry salary due to market conditions and experience.
- Shortly after complaining, Selden applied for a supervisor position but was screened out for lacking the required degree; the job was given to another candidate who met the qualification.
- Selden filed suit, alleging wage discrimination and retaliation under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. A jury found in her favor, awarding significant damages, but DMACC moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding the evidence did not show illegal wage discrimination or retaliation and remanded for judgment in favor of DMACC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wage discrimination based on sex | Selden was paid less for equal work; initial pay placement in 2013 was much lower than Tjaden’s in 1998. | Pay gap explained by gender-neutral factors: seniority and market conditions at time of hiring; Tjaden had more relevant experience. | No illegal wage discrimination; pay difference justified by neutral factors. |
| Retaliation for complaining about pay | Application for promotion was denied in retaliation for wage complaint. | All candidates without the required degree were screened out; no hostility or disparate treatment shown. | No substantial evidence of retaliation; rejection based on qualifications. |
| Willfulness of wage law violation | DMACC’s actions in setting initial salary and lockstep pay increases were willful. | Lacked willfulness—pay practices based on legitimate, neutral policies, not intent to discriminate. | Willfulness finding overturned (issue moot given reversal of liability). |
| Damages (emotional distress and backpay) | Entitled to damages for both wage bias and retaliation, including emotional distress. | Emotional distress not recoverable for wage discrimination; awards excessive and unsupported. | Damages awards set aside; not reached due to reversal on liability issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 860 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 2015) (explains Iowa’s equal pay law, its strict liability standard, and recognized affirmative defenses)
- Godfrey v. State, 962 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2021) (articulates standard for reviewing directed verdicts and elements of retaliation claims)
- Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., 962 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 2021) (discusses causation standards in retaliation claims)
- Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Sols., LLC, 897 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 2017) (addresses causation in Iowa statutory retaliation claims)
- Feeback v. Swift Pork Co., 988 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2023) (courts do not second-guess neutral business decisions absent statutory violation)