1. Upon the written complaint of the employee involved, the director may determine
whether wages have not been paid and may constitute an enforceable claim. If for any
reason the director decides not to make such determination, the director shall so notify
the complaining employee within fourteen days of receipt of the complaint. The director
shall otherwise notify the employee of such determination within a reasonable time and if
it is determined that there is an enforceable claim, the director shall, with the consent of
the complaining employee, take an assignment in trust for the wages and for any claim for
liquidated damages without being bound by any of the technical rules respecting the validity
of the assignment. However, the director shall not accept any complaint for unpaid wages
and liquidated damages after one year from the date the wages became due and payable.
2. The director, with the assistance of the office of the attorney general if the director
requests such assistance, shall, unless a settlement is reached under this subsection,
commence a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover for the benefit of
any employee any wage, expenses, and liquidated damages’ claims that have been assigned
to the director for recovery. The director may also request reasonable and necessary attorney
fees. With the consent of the assigning employee, the director may also settle a claim on
behalf of the assigning employee. Proceedings under this subsection and subsection 1 that
precede commencement of a civil action shall be conducted informally without any party
having a right to be heard before the director. The director may join various assignments in
one claim for the purpose of settling or litigating their claims.
3. The provisions of subsections 1 and 2 shall not be construed to prevent an employee
from settling or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.8 if the employee has not
assigned the claim under subsection 1.
4. Any recovery of attorney fees, in the case of actions brought under this section by the\n\nTue Dec 09 22:29:31 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 91A (28, 2)
7 WAGE PAYMENT COLLECTION, §91A.12\n\ndirector, shall be remitted by the director to the treasurer of state for deposit in the general
fund of the state. Also, the director shall not be required to pay any filing fee or other court
costs.
5. An employer shall not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any
employee because the employee has filed a complaint, assigned a claim, or brought an
action under this section or has cooperated in bringing any action against an employer.
Any employee may file a complaint with the director alleging discharge or discrimination
within thirty days after such violation occurs. Upon receipt of the complaint, the director
shall cause an investigation to be made to the extent deemed appropriate. If the director
determines from the investigation that the provisions of this subsection have been violated,
the director shall bring an action in the appropriate district court against such person. The
district court shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of this subsection
and order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the
former position with back pay.
[C77, 79, 81, §91A.10]
84 Acts, ch 1270, §3; 90 Acts, ch 1136, §9; 2023 Acts, ch 19, §1829
Referred to in §91A.3, 91A.6
\n
Notes of Decisions
Karen Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place of Dubuque II, L.L.C., 835 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 3× “Iowa Code § 91A.10(5) (1995). In response to this claim, we held public policy prohibited Tullis’s firing for making a wage claim, and the internal complaint satisfied this public policy.”
Figley v. W.S. Indus., 801 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Figley asserts WSI filed its counterclaim for the purpose of retaliating against him for seeking overtime compensation, in violation of both the FLSA ( 29 USC § 215 (a)(3)) and the IWPCA (Iowa Code § 91A.10 (2009)); he alleges the counterclaim caused him compensatory losses,…”
Tullis v. Merrill, 584 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 3× “See Iowa Code § 91A.10(1), (2). A companion subpar-agraph, however, makes plain that this authorization “shall not be construed to prevent an employee from settling or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.”
Thompto v. Coborn's Inc., 871 F. Supp. 1097 (N.D. Iowa 1994).
· cites it 2× “Although the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act provides for its own remedial procedures in Iowa Code § 91A.10 for employees who seek to recover unpaid wages and are discharged in retaliation, that remedy does not preclude Thompto’s tort claims here.”
Anthony v. State, 632 N.W.2d 897 (Iowa 2001).
“…or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.8 if the employee has not assigned the claim under subsection 1. Iowa Code § 91A.10(3).”
Woods v. Young, 732 N.W.2d 39 (Iowa 2007).
“See Iowa Code § 91A.10(5) (“Any employee may file a complaint with the commissioner alleging discharge or discrimination within thirty days after such violation occurs.”
Morris v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Iowa 2005).
“Iowa Code § 91A.10(5). Reading these two sections together, Morris asserts he has generated a genuine issue of material fact that Conagra violated Iowa’s Wage Payment Collection Law.”
Kane v. State of Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 955 F. Supp. 1117 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
“Iowa 1996), Judge Longstaff considered whether authorization for the Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Labor to bring an action on behalf of an employee in “any court of competent jurisdiction,” Iowa Code § 91A.10(2), sufficed to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
Karin Ann Bjorseth v. Iowa Newspaper Ass'n (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
“” See Iowa Code § 91A.10(5).1 But, the court explained, “[F]or an employee to have a cause of action under chapter 91A in the first place, an employer must have improperly failed to pay all wages due to the employee.”
Harry Kohrt v. MidAmerican Energy (8th Cir. 2004).
“at 239 (citing Iowa Code § 91A.10(5)). Lest we overstate the holding, we note that in Tullis, the Supreme Court of Iowa did not reach the issue of whether "the prohibitory language of § 91A.”
— Iowa Code § 91A.10(1) — 1 case
Tullis v. Merrill, 584 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1998).
“See Iowa Code § 91A.10(1), (2). A companion subpar-agraph, however, makes plain that this authorization “shall not be construed to prevent an employee from settling or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.”
— Iowa Code § 91A.10(2) — 1 case
Kane v. State of Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 955 F. Supp. 1117 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
“Iowa 1996), Judge Longstaff considered whether authorization for the Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Labor to bring an action on behalf of an employee in “any court of competent jurisdiction,” Iowa Code § 91A.10(2), sufficed to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
— Iowa Code § 91A.10(3) — 2 cases
Tullis v. Merrill, 584 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1998).
“See Iowa Code § 91A.10(1), (2). A companion subpar-agraph, however, makes plain that this authorization “shall not be construed to prevent an employee from settling or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.”
Anthony v. State, 632 N.W.2d 897 (Iowa 2001).
“…or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.8 if the employee has not assigned the claim under subsection 1. Iowa Code § 91A.10(3).”
— Iowa Code § 91A.10(5) — 9 cases
Figley v. W.S. Indus., 801 N.W.2d 602 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
“Figley asserts WSI filed its counterclaim for the purpose of retaliating against him for seeking overtime compensation, in violation of both the FLSA ( 29 USC § 215 (a)(3)) and the IWPCA (Iowa Code § 91A.10 (2009)); he alleges the counterclaim caused him compensatory losses,…”
Tullis v. Merrill, 584 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1998).
“See Iowa Code § 91A.10(1), (2). A companion subpar-agraph, however, makes plain that this authorization “shall not be construed to prevent an employee from settling or bringing an action for damages under section 91A.”
Woods v. Young, 732 N.W.2d 39 (Iowa 2007).
“See Iowa Code § 91A.10(5) (“Any employee may file a complaint with the commissioner alleging discharge or discrimination within thirty days after such violation occurs.”
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.