Opinion ID: 777174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ross's duty of performance.

Text: 36 Garner Printing argues that Ross should have been given the burden of proving his dismissal was without cause. Ordinarily, a plaintiff claiming a breach of contract bears the burden of proving that he performed his obligations under the contract. See Molo Oil Co. v. River City Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 578 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Iowa 1998). However, in a case arising under a for cause employment contract, it is generally held that the employer has the burden of proving cause for termination. See W. Distrib. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1992). 37 The Iowa Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this approach. In Wolfe v. Graether, 389 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1986), the court wrote that, under an employment contract for a fixed period of time, the employer may not discharge an employee prior to the stated time unless cause is shown based upon the employee's failure to perform in accordance with the contract of hire or there is some reason for discharge expressly provided in the contract. Id. at 652 (citing Allen v. Highway Equip. Co., 239 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Iowa 1976)). The Iowa Supreme Court's formulation, which requires a showing of employee misconduct, suggests the burden of proving misconduct rests with the employer and the employee does not have the burden of showing his conduct was unobjectionable. Cf. Diodosio, 841 P.2d at 1059 n. 3 (holding that plaintiff-employees had no burden to prove that their discharge was without cause because `discharge without cause' is merely the converse of `good cause for discharge' which ... is an affirmative defense to a claim for breach of an employment contract). 38 The Iowa Civil Jury Instructions reflect the burden-shifting approach the supreme court implicitly adopted in Wolfe. On a claim under a contract of employment for a definite time, the relevant pattern jury instruction does not require the employee to prove he performed his obligations under the contract. See Iowa Civil Jury Instruction 3110.1. Instead, the pattern instruction allows the employer to assert an affirmative defense, which presumably includes the defense that the employee gave good cause for his dismissal. See id. Of course, the defendant employer has the burden of proving its affirmative defense. See Gaston v. Finch, 246 Iowa 1360, 72 N.W.2d 507, 510 (Iowa 1955). 39 In this case, the issues of Ross's performance under the contract were identical to whether Garner Printing had cause to fire him. The shortcomings in performance that Garner Printing attributes to Ross — flagrant neglect of work and gross misconduct — are the same types of alleged misconduct Garner Printing should have had the burden of proving to a jury. Ross did not have the burden of proof on these issues, and the district court did not err in refusing to tell the jury he did. 40