Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 18-1464

Tyler Dix, Jason Cattell, Jimmy McCann, and Julie Eller
Casey's General Stores, Inc. and Casey's Marketing Company

The appellants and the appellees each seek further review of the court of appeals decision affirming the district court rulings pursuant to Iowa’s private-sector drug-testing statute, Iowa Code section 730.5, regarding: (1) the classification of safety-sensitive positions, (2) an employer’s substantial compliance with the testing provisions, and (3) awards of backpay and frontpay.


Tyler Dix, Jason Cattell, Jimmy McCann, and Julie Eller


Casey's General Stores, Inc. and Casey's Marketing Company

Attorneys for the Applicant

Mathew M. Sahag
David Albrecht
Amy R. Beck

Attorneys for the Resister

Lindsay A. Vaught
Rebecca E. Reif

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule


Oct 14, 2020 1:30 PM


Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Jun 25, 2021
Date Amended:
Sep 14, 2021

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Jan 09, 2020

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (27 pages)

            The plaintiffs are former Casey’s employees who were fired after a random drug test.  The employees filed claims against Casey’s under the civil cause of action provided in Iowa Code section 730.5(15) (2016).  Casey’s appeals the district court’s award of damages to two of the four plaintiffs and its rejection of Casey’s immunity claim.  The employees cross-appeal the district court’s conclusion Casey’s violated the statute but that they are not aggrieved employees under the statute.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on our interpretation of the statute, Casey’s is not entitled to the statutory immunity.  We find the district court correctly concluded two of the employees were tested without statutory authority, and there is no error in the district court’s grant of awards of front and back pay.  We further find the district court erred in concluding Casey’s committed two other statutory violations.  Because Casey’s conduct substantially complied with the statute in every other respect, the two remaining plaintiffs were not entitled to damages.  We affirm the district court. 

View archived opinions from prior to November 2017

© 2024 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.