Opinion ID: 1399691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act

Text: The Trust's claim under the Iowa Wage Payment Act (Act) fails as a matter of law because the Trust is not asserting a claim for consulting fees against an employer. The Act, in relevant part, provides: Employer means a person ... who in this state employs for wages a natural person. An employer does not include a client ... or other person who obtains professional services from a licensed person who provides the services on a fee service basis or as an independent contractor. See Iowa Code § 91A.2(4) (emphasis added). The consulting agreement stated: Mr. Christoffersen shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be an independent contractor and not an employee and shall not participate in any employee benefit program of Yellow Book by reason of this Agreement or the relationship between the parties created by this Agreement. All withholdings, tax liabilities and contributions shall be solely the responsibility of Mr. Christoffersen. (Emphasis added). Thus, under the plain wording of the Act, the Trust is not asserting a claim against an employer, because Yellow Book was receiving services from an independent contractor. The Act's main purpose is to facilitate the public policy of allowing employees to collect wages owed to them by their employers. Shaw v. McFarland Clinic, P.C., 363 F.3d 744, 748 (8th Cir.2004) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Yellow Book was not, under the Act, Christoffersen's employer. Because Yellow Book's obligation to pay Christoffersen for consulting fees ended when Christoffersen died, Yellow Book thereafter did not owe Christoffersen any wages under the Act. Id. (stating that, under the Act, `Wages' means compensation owed by an employer. (citation omitted)). The district court also rightly entered summary judgment in favor of Yellow Book on this issue.