David Alan Feeback
v.
Swift Pork Company, Troy Mulgrew and Todd Carl
David Feeback appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment, arguing it employed incorrect legal standards with respect to a claim of employment discrimination and improperly weighed the evidence or opined on credibility.
Resister
David Alan Feeback
Applicant
Swift Pork Company, Troy Mulgrew and Todd Carl
Attorney for the Resister
Bruce H. Stoltze Jr.
Attorneys for the Applicant
Aaron A. Clark
Ruth A. Horvatich
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Nov 16, 2022 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Bethany Currie, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. (15 pages)
David Feeback appeals the grant of summary judgment on his claims of age discrimination, workplace harassment, and wrongful termination. OPINION HOLDS: Considering Feeback’s evidence in the most favorable light, a jury could find Swift fired him because of his age. So we reverse on the age discrimination claim and remand for trial. But no genuine issues of material fact exist on the remaining claims, and we affirm summary judgment as to them.