Articles About Iowa Labor And Employment Law.

Since it was passed in 1998, Iowa’s Drug-Free Workplaces Act has been one of the most comprehensive and complex drug-testing statutes in the United States. On June 25, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions—Dix v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc. and Woods v. Charles Gabus Ford, Inc.—that

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that Iowa state law preempts the City of Waterloo’s restriction on employers’ use of applicants’ criminal record history when making hiring decisions.  Other aspects of the ordinance, however, remain legal and enforceable.  The case is Iowa Ass’n of Bus. & Indus. v. City

In two opinions filed on June 25, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court clarified the state’s complex employee drug-testing requirements. The opinions shed light on key issues, such as safety-sensitive designations, notice requirements, and compliance standards under Iowa Code section 730.5. Employers with Iowa-specific drug-testing policies should take time to

After nearly a decade of litigation, in Godrey v. State of Iowa et al, Case No. 19-1954 (June 30, 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict granting $1.5 million in damages and $3.1 million in attorneys’ fees to the former Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, based on his

An employer’s failure to notify an employee of the cost of a confirmatory re-test of his original drug test specimen is a violation of the Iowa drug testing law.  Woods v. Charles Gabus Ford, Inc., Case No. 19-0002 (Iowa June 25, 2021).

The Iowa drug testing statute imposes many requirements

Reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment, the Iowa Court of Appeals held an employee presented sufficient evidence for her disability-based hostile work environment claim to proceed to trial, despite the relatively short period of her employment. Munoz v. Adventure Lands of America, Inc., 2021 BL 37057 (Iowa Ct.

On November 16, 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds issued a public health proclamation imposing public health measures on a variety of employers to help reduce the spread of COVID-19. The Iowa Department of Public Health also issued a brief summary of the proclamation. The proclamation went into effect on 12:01

Addressing a matter of first impression, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that “when a civil cause of action is provided by the legislature in the same statute that creates the public policy to be enforced, the civil cause of action is the exclusive remedy for violation of that statute.” Ferguson v. Exide Technologies, Inc., et al, Case No. 18-1600 (Iowa Dec. 13, 2019). Therefore, a plaintiff who brings a claim for a violation of the Iowa drug testing statute cannot also bring a wrongful discharge claim based on the same conduct.

Beginning July 1, 2018, private employers in Iowa may take action based on an employee’s alcohol test result of .02 grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. The lower standard was enacted under a 2018 amendment to the Iowa drug testing law (Iowa Code Section 730.5). Prior to the amendment, employers could not take action for alcohol test results below .04 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC).

Although Iowa’s drug testing statute was enacted more than 30 years ago, it is still considered one of the most difficult laws in the country for purposes of employer compliance.

A former staffer for the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus in Iowa has been awarded $2.2 million in damages for retaliation that will be paid from Iowa’s already-floundering general fund. Kirsten Anderson was terminated from her position as communications director for the caucus in 2012. She alleged the termination was in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment and a hostile work environment and the jury took her side.

Settling a hotly debated issue, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs bringing claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”) may not recover punitive damages. Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, LLC, et al. and Drake, et al. v. Manley Toy Direct, LLC, et al., No. 12-0442 (Iowa June 21, 2013).

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the Iowa Civil Rights Act does not protect a dental assistant who was terminated by the owner of a dental practice for being an “irresistible attraction.” The decision in Nelson v. James H. Knight, DDS, P.C., No. 11-857 (Dec. 21, 2012), has attracted a lot of media attention, and some criticism.

An invasion-of-privacy claim against an insurance agent brought by his former employee should proceed even where the surveillance camera in the workplace’s unisex bathroom was faulty, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled. Koeppel v. Speirs, No. 08-1927.