Ashley Lynn Koester
v.
Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services, Rebecca Parker, and Monica Van Horn
Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services, Rebecca Parker, and Monica Van Horn (collectively “Eyerly-Ball”) seek further review of a decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court’s final order dismissing Lynn Koester’s claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Eyerly-Ball argues the court of appeals’ decision conflicted with a prior unpublished opinion of that court and improperly expanded the scope of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy because Ms. Koester was fully paid for wages owed.
Resister
Ashley Lynn Koester
Applicant
Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services, Rebecca Parker, and Monica Van Horn
Attorney for the Resister
Bruce H. Stoltze Jr.
Attorneys for the Applicant
Ryan Stefani
Frank B. Harty
Leslie Behaunek
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Nov 14, 2024 9:00 AM
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 Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (14 pages)
Lynn Koester appeals the dismissal of her petition alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy as a common-law claim and retaliation under Iowa Code chapter 91A (2022). On the first claim, the district court found she did not identify a public policy violation so she failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. And on the second, it found the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a claim. OPINION HOLDS: We find that the district court erred at law in concluding there was no public policy justification to maintain her wrongful termination common law claim. We reverse dismissal and remand for further proceedings on that claim. On her statutory claim for retaliation directly under chapter 91A, we find the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. So we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings on the common law wrongful termination claim.