1. A person holding civil service rights as provided in this chapter shall only be removed, discharged, demoted, or suspended with just cause and upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that an act or failure to act by the employee is in violation of law, city policies, or rules, or that the employee is physically or mentally unfit as determined under guidelines established pursuant to section 400.8A. This subsection shall not be construed to modify the rights, requirements, or procedures provided in section 400.8A or other rights, requirements, or procedures provided by law.
2. An employee who is removed, discharged, demoted, or suspended may request a hearing before the civil service commission to review the appointing authority’s, police chief’s, or fire chief’s decision to remove, discharge, demote, or suspend the employee.
3. The city shall have the burden to prove that the act or failure to act by the employee was in violation of law, city policies, or department rules not in conflict with any collective bargaining agreement or law. For purposes of this chapter, the city shall establish each element of the charges specified under section 400.22 by a preponderance of the evidence. The city shall have the burden to prove that the punishment imposed upon the employee is proportionate, reasonable, and just in the totality of the circumstances under the factors provided in section 400.27, subsection 1, paragraph “b”.
4. A person subject to a hearing has the right to be represented by counsel at the person’s expense or by the person’s authorized collective bargaining representative.
5. A collective bargaining agreement to which a bargaining unit that has at least thirty percent of members who are public safety employees as defined in section 20.3 is a party shall provide additional procedures not inconsistent with this section for the implementation of this section. [SS15, §1056-a32; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §5702; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, §365.18; C75, 77, 79, 81, §400.18] 2009 Acts, ch 111, §6; 2017 Acts, ch 2, §57, 64; 2025 Acts, ch 82, §4, 12 Referred to in §411.1, 411.6 2025 amendment to subsections 1 and 3 effective August 16, 2025; 2025 Acts, ch 82, §12 Subsections 1 and 3 amended \n
Notes of Decisions
Sieg v. Civ. Serv. Com'n of West Des Moines, 342 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1983).
· cites it 5× “Iowa Code § 400.18 . This power is separate from and independent of the authority of the appointing power or police chief to peremptorily suspend, demote, or discharge a subordinate officer for the same reasons.”
Lewis v. Civil Svc. Com'n of City of Ames, 776 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 2010).
· cites it 9× “” Iowa Code §§ 400.18 , 400.19. In determining whether an employee’s actions fall within these categories, “we may look to the [department’s] own rules and prescribed code of conduct as well as existing precedent for guidance.”
City of Des Moines v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 540 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 7× “3 After the commission has ruled, appeal therefrom is to the district court. Id. The clearly established standard for assessing the appropriateness of any civil service employee’s discharge is for the commission to determine whether the action was arbitrary.”
Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 2× “2d 52, 58 (Iowa 1995); Iowa Code § 400.18 (1995). Reflecting the perceived need to protect employees from the harshness of the at-will doctrine, courts began to erode the doctrine with exceptions.”
Van Baale v. City of Des Moines, 550 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 2× “Considering Van Baale’s first contention we note Iowa Code section 400.18 provides that civil service employees shall not be “removed, demoted, or suspended arbitrarily, except as otherwise provided in this chapter_” In turn, section 400.”
Smith v. Des Moines Civil Serv. Comm'n, 561 N.W.2d 75 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 10× “At issue on the present appeal is whether Smith was discharged in violation of Iowa Code section 400.18. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments of the parties, we reverse the judgment of the district court.”
Mahaffey v. Civil Serv. Com'n of City, 350 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 4× “*186 At the outset, we are asked by appellant to establish the same definition for “misconduct,” as that term is employed in section 400.18, that we have used in our cases involving unemployment insurance benefits.”
Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 963 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
“27, and § 400.18. It would also include limitations such as those found in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory discharges, Iowa Code Ch.”
Reninger v. State Dept. of Corr., 951 P.2d 782 (Wash. 1998).
“2d 580, 582 (Iowa 1985) (quoting Iowa Code Ann. § 400.18 (West 19__)), the Iowa Supreme Court considered language similar to RCW 41.”
— Iowa Code § 400.18(1) — 7 cases
— Iowa Code § 400.18(2) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 400.18(3) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.