10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc.green2 sentences2018He asserted, "The filing of a civil rights complaint on the basis of race is protected activity under the Iowa Civil Rights Act." He also noted he was fired "just two months after filing his civil rights complaint" and stated, "In addition to the many facts and contradictory statements that could lead a reasonable juror to believe that retaliation motivated [his] termination, suspicious timing adds further support for such reasonable inferences." See Boyle , 710 N.W.2d at 750 (reversing district court's refusal to rule on a retaliatory discharge claim after stating, "While mere coincidence of 2017Id. | 1 | 3 |
Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a “narrow deviation[]” from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a “public policy exception”). 2018Ctr., Inc. , 636 N.W.2d 74 , 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald , 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. , 547 N.W.2d 216 , 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co. , 540 N.W.2d 277 , 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a "narrow deviation[ ]" from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc. , 445 N.W.2d 351 , 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a "public policy exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Phillip E. Jones v. University of Iowa the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa Sally Mason, President of the University of Iowa and Individually and the Stolar Partnership, LLPgreen2 sentences2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127, 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “an exception to Iowa’s general rule that employment is at-will”); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C., 835 N.W.2d 293, 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and 8 describing the claim as “a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment”); Berry, 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “a narrow public-p 2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa , 836 N.W.2d 127 , 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "an exception to Iowa's general rule that employment is at-will"); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C. , 835 N.W.2d 293 , 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment"); Berry , 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a narrow publi | 1 | 1 |
Karen Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place of Dubuque II, L.L.C.green2 sentences2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127, 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “an exception to Iowa’s general rule that employment is at-will”); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C., 835 N.W.2d 293, 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and 8 describing the claim as “a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment”); Berry, 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “a narrow public-p 2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa , 836 N.W.2d 127 , 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "an exception to Iowa's general rule that employment is at-will"); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C. , 835 N.W.2d 293 , 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment"); Berry , 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a narrow publi | 1 | 1 |
Nathan Berry v. Liberty Holdings, Inc. A/K/A Liberty Ready Mixgreen2 sentences2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127, 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “an exception to Iowa’s general rule that employment is at-will”); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C., 835 N.W.2d 293, 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and 8 describing the claim as “a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment”); Berry, 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as “a narrow public-p 2018See Jones v. Univ. of Iowa , 836 N.W.2d 127 , 144 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "an exception to Iowa's general rule that employment is at-will"); Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place Dubuque II, L.L.C. , 835 N.W.2d 293 , 300 (Iowa 2013) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment"); Berry , 803 N.W.2d at 109 (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as "a narrow publi | 1 | 1 |
Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ass’n, 781 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Iowa 2010) (same); Jasper, 764 N.W.2d at 762 (same); Theisen v. Covenant Med. 2018Ass'n, 781 N.W.2d 272 , 275 (Iowa 2010) (same); Jasper , 764 N.W.2d at 762 (same); Theisen v. Covenant Med. | 1 | 1 |
Niblo v. Parr Manufacturing, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a “narrow deviation[]” from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a “public policy exception”). 2018Ctr., Inc. , 636 N.W.2d 74 , 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald , 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. , 547 N.W.2d 216 , 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co. , 540 N.W.2d 277 , 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a "narrow deviation[ ]" from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc. , 445 N.W.2d 351 , 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a "public policy exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Ballalatak v. All Iowa Agriculture Ass'ngreen2 sentences2018Ass’n, 781 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Iowa 2010) (same); Jasper, 764 N.W.2d at 762 (same); Theisen v. Covenant Med. 2018Ass'n, 781 N.W.2d 272 , 275 (Iowa 2010) (same); Jasper , 764 N.W.2d at 762 (same); Theisen v. Covenant Med. | 1 | 1 |
Theisen v. Covenant Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a “narrow deviation[]” from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a “public policy exception”). 2018Ctr., Inc. , 636 N.W.2d 74 , 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald , 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. , 547 N.W.2d 216 , 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co. , 540 N.W.2d 277 , 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a "narrow deviation[ ]" from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc. , 445 N.W.2d 351 , 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a "public policy exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co.green2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a “narrow deviation[]” from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a “public policy exception”). 2018Ctr., Inc. , 636 N.W.2d 74 , 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald , 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. , 547 N.W.2d 216 , 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co. , 540 N.W.2d 277 , 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a "narrow deviation[ ]" from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc. , 445 N.W.2d 351 , 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a "public policy exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Huegerich v. IBP, Inc.green2 sentences2018Ctr., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald, 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a “narrow deviation[]” from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee’s retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a “public policy exception”). 2018Ctr., Inc. , 636 N.W.2d 74 , 79 (Iowa 2001) (same); Fitzgerald , 613 N.W.2d at 281 (same); Huegerich v. IBP, Inc. , 547 N.W.2d 216 , 220 (Iowa 1996) (same); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co. , 540 N.W.2d 277 , 282 (Iowa 1995) (assessing whether the employee was at will and describing retaliatory discharge claims as a "narrow deviation[ ]" from the general at-will employment doctrine); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc. , 445 N.W.2d 351 , 352 (Iowa 1989) (adjudicating an at-will employee's retaliatory discharge claim and describing the claim as a "public policy exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Butts v. University of Osteopathic Medicine & Health Sciencesgreen1 sentence1998See Butts v. University of Osteopathic Med. & Health Sciences, 561 N.W.2d 838, 841 (Iowa App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Abrisz v. Pulley Freight Lines, Inc.green1 sentence1988Abrisz v. Pulley Freight Unes, 270 N.W.2d 454, 456 (Iowa 1978); Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(1). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hulme v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2017See id. at 535; Hulme, 480 N.W.2d at 42 . 2017See id. at 535; Hulme, 480 N.W.2d at 42 . | 3 | 1998–2017 |
Teachout v. Forest City Community School District
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 301 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy
green
2 sentences2018Whereas a contract claim “enforces privately negotiated terms and conditions of employment,” a retaliatory discharge claim “is premised on a conflict between the conditions of employment and constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that are applicable irrespective of the terms of contractual employment.” Id. 2018Whereas a contract claim "enforces privately negotiated terms and conditions of employment," a retaliatory discharge claim "is premised on a conflict between the conditions of employment and constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that are applicable irrespective of the terms of contractual employment." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Retherford v. AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018In short, a retaliatory discharge claim “differs in both scope and sanction from any contractual provision that might limit an employer’s power to discharge an employee for other than just cause.” Id. at 959 . 2018In short, a retaliatory discharge claim "differs in both scope and sanction from any contractual provision that might limit an employer's power to discharge an employee for other than just cause." Id. at 959 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dombrowski v. Bulson
green
2 sentences2013In Niblo , we permitted emotional distress damages for a retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy, as “an intentional wrong committed by an employer against an employee who chooses to exercise some substantial right.” Id. at 355 . 2013We relied on the “vast majority of jurisdictions that base the cause of action for wrongful discharge on intentional tort principles, rather than on negligence, [to] allow recovery for emotional distress.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992“To defend against a retaliatory discharge claim, an employer must show that it had a non-retaliatory reason for the discharge; this purely factual inquiry likewise does not turn on the meaning of any provision of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.