Opinion ID: 1835073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court's Denial of SMX's Motions.

Text: SMX urges first that the district court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In determining this issue we view the evidence in accordance with the same principles required for review by the trial court. Slocum v. Hammond, 346 N.W.2d 485, 493 (Iowa 1984). The standard is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify submitting the question to the jury. Id. at 493. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motions were made regardless of whether it is contradicted and every legitimate inference that may be fairly and reasonably deducted therefrom must be carried to the aid of the evidence. If ... there is substantial evidence in support of each element of plaintiff's claim, the motion... should be denied.... Conversely, if there is no substantial evidence ... a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in defendant's favor is appropriate. Id. at 494. Here, evidence showed that Smith was fired after filing a workers' compensation claim when SMX's own safety program would call for only a deduction of six points. While Smith, as an employee at will, was subject to termination for any reason or no reason, SMX's deviation from its established program was something the jury could consider. There was also evidence that SMX's insurance director, not its personnel director, made the decision to fire Smith. There was also evidence that the personnel director advised against the discharge, predicting litigation if Smith was fired. Moreover, the insurance director conceded that the cost of paying workers' compensation benefits entered into his decision to fire Smith. This and other evidence was sufficient to justify submitting the question to the jury. SMX claims, however, that since it did not interfere with Smith's eligibility to receive workers' compensation benefits, our previous cases dealing with retaliatory discharge do not apply. In Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558 (Iowa 1988), we first recognized that there is a cause of action for retaliatory discharge due to the filing of a workers' compensation claim. We held in Springer that if the discharge of an employee at will is in violation of public policy, the employee has a cause of action in tort against the employer. Id. at 560-61. SMX claims that since it did not interfere with Smith's workers' compensation benefits it did not clearly violate any public policy. We disagree. The public policy involved in this case is expressed in Iowa Code section 85.18 (1985), which provides: [n]o contract, rule, or device whatsoever shall operate to relieve the employer, in whole or in part, from any liability created by this chapter except as herein provided. We must now decide whether this policy can be violated although the employee is allowed to receive his benefits without interference. In Springer, however, we cited with approval Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973). In Frampton, the seminal case in the area of retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers' compensation claim, the Indiana Supreme Court was faced with a situation similar to the one before us. The court, construing a statute very similar to Iowa's, stated: [I]n order for the goals of the Act to be realized and for public policy to be effectuated, the employee must be able to exercise his right in an unfettered fashion without being subject to reprisal. If employers are permitted to penalize employees for filing workmen's compensation claims, a most important public policy will be undermined. The fear of being discharged would have a deleterious effect on the exercise of a statutory right. Employees will not file claims for justly deserved compensationopting, instead, to continue their employment without incident. The end result, of course, is that the employer is effectively relieved of his obligation. . . . . We believe the threat of discharge to be a device within the framework of [the statute], and hence, in clear contravention of public policy. Id. at 252, 297 N.E.2d at 427-28. We agree with the Indiana Supreme Court that retaliatory discharge violates public policy even if the employer does not interfere with the discharged employee's benefits. The trial court was correct in denying SMX's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.