Opinion ID: 1742981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title VII Hostile-Work-Environment Claim

Text: Boyle brought a simultaneous hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII. McElroy v. State, 637 N.W.2d 488, 499 (Iowa 2001) (hereinafter McElroy I ). To establish the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, Boyle had to prove to a jury the same elements as those set forth in the ICRA hostile-work-environment claim: (1) she was a member of a protected group; (2) she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. Beard v. Flying J, Inc., 266 F.3d 792, 797-98 (8th Cir.2001). If the harassment was perpetrated by a nonsupervisory employee, she had to additionally show Alum-Line knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take proper remedial action. See Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 631 (8th Cir.2000). The jury was not asked to determine generally whether Boyle proved her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim; instead, the jury was only instructed to enter written findings on predetermined issues in the case. The jury made the following findings: (1) Boyle was subjected to sexual harassment by offensive sexual language and conduct, (2) the conduct was based on gender, (3) the conduct was directed at her and was unwelcome and uninvited, (4) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive so that a reasonable person would find Boyle's work environment to be hostile, (5) Alum-Line knew of the sexual harassment, and (6) Boyle did not prove Alum-Line failed to take steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. Boyle contends the jury's sixth finding was a result of an improper jury instruction. We review alleged errors in jury instructions for correction of errors at law. State v. Anderson, 636 N.W.2d 26, 30 (Iowa 2001); Iowa R.App. P. 6.4. A court's instructions to the jury must convey the applicable law in such a way that the jury has a clear understanding of the issues it must decide. Thompson v. City of Des Moines, 564 N.W.2d 839, 846 (Iowa 1997). Reversal is generally required in cases where an instruction is confusing or conflicting. McElroy I, 637 N.W.2d at 500. Boyle claims the district court erred when it gave, over her objection, instruction no. 17 to the jury. Jury instruction no. 17 stated: The plaintiff was an employee at will with the defendant. This means that the employer had the right to terminate the plaintiff's employment at any time, for any reason, with or without just cause. Therefore, you need not decide whether the employer had just cause for terminating her employment. The mere fact that her employment was terminated does not establish her claim for damages. Boyle claims this instruction is legally incorrect because it does not provide any exception to the rule that an at-will employee can be terminated for any reason. Boyle contends this jury instruction could have led the jury to conclude that Alum-Line's termination of Boyle's employment was a step reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. Jury instruction no. 17 was an inaccurate statement of the law because there are a number of exceptions to the at-will employee doctrine based on public policy and legislative enactment. For example, in Borschel v. City of Perry, 512 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Iowa 1994), we held Discharge of an employee because of age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, or disability is an unfair employment practice. Remedies are provided employees who are discharged in violation of [the Iowa Civil Rights Act]. (Internal citations omitted.) Also, in Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560-61 (Iowa 1988), we stated, We deem [the Iowa workers' compensation statute] to be a clear expression that it is the public policy of this state that an employee's right to seek ... compensation ... for work-related injuries should not be interfered with regardless of the terms of the contract of hire. To permit the type of retaliatory discharge which has been alleged in this case to go without a remedy would fly in the face of this policy. We also conclude the improper jury instruction was prejudicial to Boyle. The jury's first five factual findings indicate Boyle was subjected to severe or pervasive sexual harassment in the form of sexual language and conduct. The jury's sixth finding indicates the jury somehow determined Alum-Line took steps reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. But, as discussed above, beyond the one incident where Alum-Line reprimanded both Boyle and Hansmeier, Alum-Line took no steps to stop any sexual harassment because it claims it received no reports of sexual harassment from Boyle. Because instruction no. 17 incorrectly states a person can be terminated for any reason, there is a strong possibility the jury viewed Boyle's termination as a step taken by Alum-Line that was reasonably calculated to stop the sexual harassment. It was no leap of logic to make this conclusion because Boyle's termination was certainly effective at ending the sexual harassment. Therefore, we strike the jury's sixth factual finding and reverse the trial court's judgment based upon that finding. As discussed above, the district court's findings of fact support a judgment for Boyle under the elements of her ICRA hostile-work-environment claim. Because the elements for the Title VII claim mirror the elements of the ICRA claim, we conclude, under the doctrine of res judicata, that the court must also find for Boyle on her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. See Heidemann v. Sweitzer, 375 N.W.2d 665, 667 (Iowa 1985) (Issue preclusion, one application of the broader concept of res judicata, prevents a party to a prior action from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue raised and resolved in the prior action.). Accordingly, the court shall enter judgment in favor of Boyle on her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim and enter damages in conformance with the damages determined by the court on the ICRA hostile-work-environment claim. See 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 772 (1997) (Even though a plaintiff may have separate concurrent or successive rights of action arising out of the same transaction, he can have only one full satisfaction, which, when obtained, bars all further actions.).