Opinion ID: 2169280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Docking of Sick Leave and Vacation Time.

Text: While the plaintiffs pled their case in district court as a claim for lost wages, they appear now to focus on a claim for lost time: lost sick leave and vacation. The district court referred to this as docking their accrued entitlements to time off for vacation and sick leave. The court concluded [t]he time docked and the injuries sustained are all closely related and part of the same workers' compensation claim, so the commissioner had exclusive jurisdiction on the docking claim as well as the claim for wages. Iowa Code section 85.27 provides only for lost wages, not for the reinstatement of sick leave or vacation time used for attending medical appointments. Any rights the plaintiffs have in respect to docking turn on the interpretation and application of their employment contracts, not on the workers' compensation law. An action to recover lost time would properly be brought in district court, under the employment contract, not in proceedings before the commissioner. The issue now is whether the district court erred in refusing to consider the docking claim as a part of the plaintiffs' suit in district court. (The court dismissed the docking claim, as well as the claim for wages, on jurisdiction grounds, holding the commissioner had exclusive jurisdiction of both claims.) We have held a district court may properly consider a contract claim, even though it had its origin in a workers' compensation claim. See White v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 514 N.W.2d 70, 74-75 (Iowa 1994) (suit on workers' compensation settlement agreement properly brought in district court, not in workers' compensation proceeding, as commissioner had no jurisdiction). The problem with recognizing the plaintiffs' docking claim in this case is their petition did not raise the issue. It raised only claims based on the State's failure to pay wages under section 85.27; it did not seek restoration of lost sick leave or vacation. In fact, such rights were not even mentioned. We have held that notice pleading requires a fair notice of the claim asserted to allow a party to make an adequate response. Gosha v. Woller, 288 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Iowa 1980) (petition asserting breach of express warranty not fair notice of claim based on implied warranty). Here, the plaintiffs' petition, asserting a violation of wage-payment provisions of the workers' compensation statute, did not give fair notice to the State that the plaintiffs were demanding reinstatement of their lost vacation and sick leave under their employment contracts. The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' petition. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except CADY, J., who takes no part.