As employment cases go, the 2018–2019 adjudicative term (covered in Part I here) may go down as a year of missed chances. In Hawkins v. Grinnell Regional Medical Center, Patrick Smith wrote in June, the Justices failed to address an emotional-distress award’s excessiveness and the permissibility of a “golden rule” argument used in
Age Discrimination
Iowa Supreme Court 2018-2019 Term in Review: Labor and Employment Edition (Part I)
The Iowa Supreme Court wrapped up its latest adjudicative term on June 28, 2019, having submitted 113 cases. More remarkable for the changes it witnessed than for its labor and employment decisions, the term began with the Court’s first new Justice since 2011. By term’s end another had been appointed. The Court that completed this…
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses $4.5 Million Verdict in Age and Disability Case on Narrow Grounds, Passing Up the Opportunity to Decide Whether Emotional Distress Award was Excessive
In July 2017, a jury in Poweshiek County, Iowa returned a verdict against Grinnell Regional Medical Center (GRMC) for $4.5 million in an age and disability discrimination lawsuit. The Grinnell Regional case was one of a trio of million dollar plus verdicts Iowa juries returned in the spring and summer of 2017 in employment discrimination…
Are You Facing a Reduction in Force? Make Sure the Release is Valid or You May Pay Severance and Still Get Sued for Age Discrimination.
In 1990 Congress enacted the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) out of concern that employees terminated as part of a Reduction in Force (RIF) did not fully understand the rights they were giving up in exchange for the payment of severance benefits. Under OWBPA, a severance agreement entered into with a terminated employee over age 40 is not valid unless the agreement contains certain provisions. Among other things, the release is supposed to be written in easy to understand language rather than legal jargon; it must advise the employee to seek advice from an attorney; it must allows the employee adequate time to consider whether to sign the release (21 to 45 days, depending upon how many employees are part of the RIF); and, in the event the employee changes his mind after signing, the employee has seven days to revoke the agreement. If the release does not comply in every respect, it is not valid, and an employee who signed and accepted the severance payments may still sue for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination is Employment Act (ADEA). An employee who sues may not even have to return the money received as part of the severance agreement.
Continue Reading Are You Facing a Reduction in Force? Make Sure the Release is Valid or You May Pay Severance and Still Get Sued for Age Discrimination.
Trouble Begets Trouble
“University of Iowa College of Law” “age discrimination” lawsuit retaliation professor…
Continue Reading Trouble Begets Trouble
Recent 8th Circuit Case Likely to Encourage Continued Migration of Age Discrimination Claims to State Court
We have discussed in this blog before the migration of discrimination claims to Iowa state courts rather than federal courts. The trend is driven by a number of factors, including the recognition in 2005 of the right to a jury trial under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the greater propensity of federal courts…
Whatever Happened to…Jack Gross?
Remember Jack Gross? Back in 2003 he claimed a demotion from his management job at West Des Moines based FBL Financial Services constituted age discrimination. A federal jury in the Southern District of Iowa agreed and awarded him $47,000 in damages. From there his case had a remarkable journey: first stopping in St. Louis at the Eighth Circuit…
Eighth Circuit Once Again Reviews Age Discrimination Burden of Proof–This Time Under ICRA
Age discrimination cases tried in the Southern District of Iowa continue to generate controversy over how juries should be instructed about the plaintiff’s burden of proof. First it was Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., tried in the Southern District and ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2009. Then it was …
Gross v. FBL Remand: Eighth Circuit Considers Additional Issues
On November 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion on the remand of Gross v. FBL Financial Group, Inc. We have discussed the Gross case in several previous posts (here, here, and here). The case has particular local interest because it was tried in…
An Interesting Interview with Jack Gross
Des Moines Register columnist Marc Hansen writes about an interview he had with Jack Gross, the plaintiff in Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc., decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last June. Mr. Gross was in Washinton, DC last week to testify before the Senate Judiciary committee that is considering amendments to the ADEA that would effectively overrule the …