Susan Ackerman v. State of Iowa, Iowa Workforce Development, Teresa Wahlert, Teresa Hillary, and Devon Lewis
16-0287
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Susan Ackerman, an administrative law judge with Iowa Workforce Development, was suspended and later fired after testifying before the Iowa Senate Government Oversight Committee about pressure on ALJs.
- While suspended (and before termination), Ackerman sued the State and individual defendants alleging, among other claims, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (retaliation for protected legislative disclosure under Iowa Code § 70A.28).
- Ackerman’s employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provided a just-cause termination standard and grievance/arbitration procedures; the parties and petition acknowledged the CBA’s existence.
- The State moved to dismiss the wrongful-discharge tort count, arguing the tort is reserved for at-will employees and not available to those covered by a CBA.
- The district court granted dismissal; Ackerman appealed interlocutorily. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether contract/CBA status precludes a wrongful-discharge tort claim.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that being employed under a CBA does not bar pleading a wrongful-discharge claim for retaliation in violation of public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a wrongful-discharge tort (violation of public policy) is available to an employee covered by a CBA | Ackerman: CBA status does not preclude the tort; Conaway and Sanford recognize torts for contractual employees and limiting the tort would let employers contract away public-policy protections | State: Wrongful-discharge is an exception to at-will doctrine; thus only at-will employees may assert it and CBA/contract employees must pursue contractual remedies | Court: Reversed dismissal — CBA coverage does not prevent pleading wrongful-discharge in violation of public policy; availability depends on public-policy analysis, not solely on at-will status |
| Whether the district court properly relied on CBA terms on a motion to dismiss | Ackerman: Court should not consider CBA terms at motion-to-dismiss stage; factual determination premature | State: CBA existence and just-cause status were conceded; dismissal appropriate | Court: Declined to decide judicial-notice issue because dismissal rested on conceded fact of contractual status; but held contractual status alone is not a bar to the tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1988) (recognizing wrongful-discharge tort where termination frustrates well-recognized public policy)
- Conaway v. Webster City Prods. Co., 431 N.W.2d 795 (Iowa 1988) (CBA-covered employees may bring wrongful-discharge tort claims that can be resolved without interpreting the CBA)
- Sanford v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 534 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 1995) (reaffirming wrongful-discharge tort applicability and noting union contract was background, not barrier)
- Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 799 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2015) (contrasting view: wrongful-discharge tort limited where contract provides remedy; availability depends on how termination is addressed in contract)
- Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place of Dubuque II, L.L.C., 835 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2013) (Iowa Supreme Court limits wrongful-discharge claims to narrowly defined public policies)
- Harvey v. Care Initiatives, Inc., 634 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 2001) (no wrongful-discharge cause for independent contractors; distinguishes independent contractors from employees)