Articles About Iowa Labor And Employment Law.

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.