986 N.W.2d 859
Iowa2023Background:
- Tommy Copeland, an honorably discharged Army veteran, worked as an air base security guard for the Iowa Air National Guard and was subject to a multi-level chain of command.
- Copeland’s duties included armed security, access to restricted areas, weapon and less-lethal qualifications, and a strenuous physical agility test; he was terminated after failing that test four times.
- Copeland sued, claiming Iowa Code §35C.6 (veterans preference) entitled him to a pretermination hearing; the State asserted the §35C.8 exception for persons holding a “strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer.”
- The district court agreed with the State; a divided Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed; Copeland sought further review by the Iowa Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court concluded the §35C.8 exception cannot apply unless the veteran has a direct reporting relationship to the appointing officer (adjutant general or deputies); Copeland reported only to a security forces manager.
- Holding: the exception did not apply to Copeland; he was entitled to veterans-preference protections (including a pretermination hearing); the court vacated the court of appeals decision, reversed the district court, and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa Code §35C.8’s exception for persons "holding a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer" applies when the veteran does not directly report to the appointing officer | Copeland: §35C.6 entitles him to a pretermination hearing; he did not have a "strictly confidential relation" with the appointing officer | State: Copeland’s duties require skill, judgment, trust and confidence, so the §35C.8 exception applies even through a chain of command | The exception requires a direct reporting relationship to the appointing officer; indirect/chain-of-command reporting does not qualify, so Copeland is protected by §35C.6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State Printing Bd., 296 N.W. 719 (Iowa 1941) (articulated broad test that delegated duties requiring skill, judgment, trust and confidence support a confidential relation)
- Ervin v. Triplett, 18 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1945) (held detective did not hold a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer where reporting was only to an immediate superior)
- Richards v. Bd. of Control of State Insts., 170 N.W.2d 243 (Iowa 1969) (treated the exception as a legal question and discussed delegation and confidentiality factors)
- Tusant v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W. 690 (Iowa 1941) (dissent warning that an expansive exception could eviscerate the veterans preference)
- Andreano v. Gunter, 110 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 1961) (examined the exceptions in context and discussed relational proximity to appointing authority)
- Bianco v. Mills, 80 N.W.2d 754 (Iowa) (found attorneys had a strictly confidential relationship with the appointing body)