Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Springer v. Weeks and Leo Co., Inc.green2 sentences2025In reply, Critser points to this holding in Lara: “[R]etaliatory discharge of an employee who files a claim for partial unemployment benefits ‘serves to frustrate a well-recognized and defined public policy of the state.’” 512 N.W.2d at 782 (emphasis added) (quoting Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988)); see also Koester, 14 N.W.3d at 730 (“Koester wasn’t discharged for engaging in statutorily protected activity, such as claiming unpaid wages, filing an unemployment claim, or filing a workers’ compensation claim.”). 1995See Lara v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Iowa 1994) (public policy violated where employee was fired for filing an unemployment claim); Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988) (cause of action exists where employee was discharged for filing a workers’ compensation claim). | 2 | 2 |
Lara v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025In reply, Critser points to this holding in Lara: “[R]etaliatory discharge of an employee who files a claim for partial unemployment benefits ‘serves to frustrate a well-recognized and defined public policy of the state.’” 512 N.W.2d at 782 (emphasis added) (quoting Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988)); see also Koester, 14 N.W.3d at 730 (“Koester wasn’t discharged for engaging in statutorily protected activity, such as claiming unpaid wages, filing an unemployment claim, or filing a workers’ compensation claim.”). 1995See Lara v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Iowa 1994) (public policy violated where employee was fired for filing an unemployment claim); Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988) (cause of action exists where employee was discharged for filing a workers’ compensation claim). | 2 | 2 |
Ashley Lynn Koester v. Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services, Rebecca Parker, and Monica Van Horngreen1 sentence2025In reply, Critser points to this holding in Lara: “[R]etaliatory discharge of an employee who files a claim for partial unemployment benefits ‘serves to frustrate a well-recognized and defined public policy of the state.’” 512 N.W.2d at 782 (emphasis added) (quoting Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988)); see also Koester, 14 N.W.3d at 730 (“Koester wasn’t discharged for engaging in statutorily protected activity, such as claiming unpaid wages, filing an unemployment claim, or filing a workers’ compensation claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tullis v. Merrill
green
2 sentences2024She was fired because of an ongoing dispute with her employer over compensation rates.2 Iowa Code section 91A.10(5) specifically protects an employee from discrimination who “has filed a complaint, assigned a claim, or brought an action under this section.” But claims “under this section” involve “wages [that] have not been paid.” See id. § 91A.10(1). 2024She was fired because of an ongoing dispute with her employer over compensation rates.2 Iowa Code section 91A.10(5) specifically protects an employee from discrimination who “has filed a complaint, assigned a claim, or brought an action under this section.” But claims “under this section” involve “wages [that] have not been paid.” See id. § 91A.10(1). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Kelly v. Iowa Department of Job Service
green
1 sentence2000Moreover, the court pointed out, “[e]very employer could defeat an unemployment claim by merely testifying that an employee was capable, didn’t do the job to the employer’s satisfaction, and was therefore guilty of misconduct.” Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Training
green
1 sentence1998No one would conceive of disqualifying a claimant from unemployment benefits during a certain week because he failed to actually look for work during another week, long prior to his ever filing a claim for benefits. [The refusal-to-work disqualification] is another manifestation of the legislature’s desire that people claiming unemployment benefits actively look for work in good faith, but it does not mean that a refusal of a job which was offered in the past, during a time when unemployment benefits were not even claimed, should be held against claimants.” Id. (quoting from the agency’s rulin | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.