Supreme Court Denies Public Policy Exception to At Will Employment for Employee Who Files Personal Injury Lawsuit Against Employer

The Iowa Supreme Court declined to create a public policy exception to the general rule of at will employment in Berry v. Liberty Holdings, No. 10-0094 (Iowa Sept. 9, 2011).  Berry involved an employee who was injured when a concrete pumper truck struck and injured him while he was on his way home from work.  Plaintiff worked for Liberty Holdings and the truck which struck him was owned by Premier.  Berry filed suit against Premier and settled the case within the policy limits.  Nine months after the settlement, he was fired by Liberty.

Plaintiff alleged that in filing his claim against Premier, he was engaged in a protected activity, and he brought a wrongful termination suit against Liberty.  Liberty filed a motion to dismiss, indicating there was no clearly defined public policy right that was violated by the termination.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss, but this action was reversed by the court of appeals, and the claim was remanded to the district court.

The court first noted that Iowa was an at will employment state, but that there was a narrow public policy exception to the general rule of at will employment.  The court indicated that there must be a clearly defined and well recognized public policy of the state in order to trigger the public policy exception.  Berry relied on Iowa's comparative fault statute as the underpinning of a public policy which protected employees from termination when they sought redress from the courts for negligent actions of others.  The court seemingly had little difficulty in finding that the comparative fault statute, although it was a comprehensive and far-reaching modification of Iowa's tort laws, was not a statement of public policy protecting employees from discharge when they filed personal injury actions.  The court found that the statute regulated private conduct and did not implicate public policy concerns.  Based on this conclusion, the dismissal of the action by the district court was reinstated.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions