Timothy Fitzgerald v. Hy-Vee, Inc. D/B/A Hy-Vee and Ryan Roberts, Individually, 16-0462

Background

Fitzgerald worked for Hy-Vee from 1989 and became an international food service manager; he underwent knee surgery in July 2011 and had work restrictions (sit as needed / sit half of every hour).
He took FMLA leave July–Sept 2011, returned with restrictions, and alleges management (store director Roberts) ignored those restrictions and made disparaging remarks.
Fitzgerald filed an internal harassment complaint against Roberts; Hy-Vee investigated and counseled both parties; Fitzgerald provided an updated doctor’s note in late 2011 which Roberts denies receiving.
On Aug 30–31, 2012 Fitzgerald used a derogatory term about a coworker; Hy-Vee concluded he violated its anti‑harassment policy and informed him his employment was terminated on Aug 31, 2012 (termination paperwork processed Sept 3, 2012).
At the Aug 31 meeting Fitzgerald disclosed addiction to pain medication/alcohol and later (Sept 4) sought FMLA for treatment; he filed an ICRC complaint June 6, 2013 and sued in district court Sept 4, 2014 alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate.
The district court granted summary judgment for Hy‑Vee and Roberts; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was pretext for disability discrimination	Fitzgerald says comments about his knee, prior complaints against Roberts, and ignored restrictions show discriminatory motive; termination date ambiguous so disclosure/ accommodation was contemporaneous	Hy‑Vee says termination was for violating anti‑harassment policy (derogatory comment); termination occurred Aug 31 and paperwork processed Sept 3	Court: Employer gave legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of pretext — summary judgment affirmed
Whether the district court failed to view facts favorably to Fitzgerald	Fitzgerald contends the court omitted favorable facts and should infer later termination date or that he was spared during the meeting	Hy‑Vee points to consistent testimony, termination reports, texts showing transfer attempts but contemporaneous notice of termination	Court: No reversible error; plaintiff did not produce specific facts creating a genuine factual dispute about termination date
Timeliness of failure‑to‑accommodate claim for knee injury	Fitzgerald argues denial continued up to termination so claim is timely (continuing violation or repeated discrete acts)	Hy‑Vee contends accommodation requests were made in 2011 and plaintiff filed ICRC more than 300 days later; each denial was a past discrete act	Court: Denial was a discrete act in 2011; continuing‑violation doctrine not applied; knee claim is time‑barred
Timeliness of failure‑to‑accommodate claim for chemical addictions	Fitzgerald says he requested FMLA/accommodation Sept 4, 2012 (timely) and managers knew of his addiction earlier	Hy‑Vee says Fitzgerald first disclosed addictions after being told he would be terminated, so request was untimely/too late	Court: Request came after misconduct and notice of termination; untimely and insufficient as an accommodation request — claim barred

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 849 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (summary judgment standard and ICRA discrimination elements)
Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa 2013) (employer production of legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and pretext analysis)
Smidt v. Porter, 695 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 2005) (pretext requires sufficient admissible evidence to show employer’s reason false)
Farmland Foods, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm’n, 672 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa 2003) (discrete acts rule and limitations period)
Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 794 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2015) (post‑misconduct request for accommodation is untimely/too late)