United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 11-3122

___________________________

Hedayat Khaldar Saghir

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Schenker Logistics, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: July 18, 2012

Filed: April 16, 2013 

[Unpublished]

____________

 Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Hedayat Khaldar Saghir appeals the district court's1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action against his former employer, Schenker Logistics, Inc.

(Schenker). In October 2009, Saghir filed an action against Schenker in Iowa state

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
court, asserting the following claims: (1) disability discrimination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) wrongful discharge, and (3) violation of

his right to workers' compensation. Schenker subsequently removed the case to

federal district court. Saghir filed an amended complaint on November 12, 2010,

changing his third claim to a gross-negligence claim and adding a fourth claim, which 

alleged that Schenker violated certain notice requirements under the Consolidated

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Schenker filed a motion for summary

judgment on all of Saghir's claims, and Saghir opposed the motion as to all counts

except his ADA claim. The district court granted the motion on all counts. Saghir

now appeals the grant of summary judgment.

Upon careful review of the record and the parties' arguments below and on

appeal, we affirm. First, regarding Saghir's ADA claim, Saghir did not oppose this

basis for summary judgment at the district court level, and therefore the argument was

waived. See Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trs., 558 F.3d 731, 734–35

(8th Cir. 2009) ("[F]ailure to oppose a basis for summary judgment constitutes waiver

of that argument [on appeal]."). 

Next, the district court properly held that Saghir failed to establish a genuine

issue of material fact on his wrongful-discharge claim. Under Iowa law, the elements

for a wrongful-discharge claim are: 

(1) existence of a clearly defined public policy that protects employee

activity; (2) the public policy would be jeopardized by the discharge

from employment; (3) the employee engaged in the protected activity,

and this conduct was the reason for the employee's discharge; and (4)

there was no overriding business justification for the termination. 

Jasper v. H. Nizman, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 761 (Iowa 2009). Saghir failed to state

facts sufficient to show causation between the protected activity and his termination. 

-2-
See Barrera v. Con Agra Inc., 244 F.3d 663, 665–66 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that

temporal proximity alone is insufficient to create a fact issue on causation element). 

The district court also properly dismissed Saghir's gross-negligence claim. 

Under Iowa law, Saghir's exclusive remedy for work-related injury is under the Iowa

workers' compensation statute. See Iowa Code § 85.20. While gross-negligence is

an exception to this general rule, the exception only applies to claims against

coemployees, not employers. McGill v. Fish, 790 N.W.2d 113, 119 (Iowa 2010).

Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Saghir's

COBRA claim. The district court ruled that Saghir's COBRA claim was barred by the

statute of limitations. On appeal, Saghir argues only that his COBRA claim was

timely because it related back to his original complaint, which was filed within the

statute of limitations. An amended complaint relates back to the date of the original

complaint if it "asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction,

or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original" complaint. Fed.

R. Civ. P 15(c)(1)(B). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

determinating that Saghir's COBRA claim did not relate back to the original

complaint. McKay v. Purkett, 255 F.3d 660, 661 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

_____________________________

-3-