Opinion ID: 1863815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Channon raises four issues on her appeal. She contends the district court erred in concluding that the award of front pay damages was subject to the damages cap imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. She additionally asserts that the district court erred in refusing to allocate compensatory damages under the ICRA and $300,000 in punitive damages under Title VII. She also contends the damages cap is unconstitutional. She lastly contends that the district court erred in dismissing her claim of tortious infliction of emotional distress on the basis that such claims are preempted by the ICRA.
1. Background. Channon contends the district court erred in concluding that front pay constitutes future pecuniary loss, subject to the compensatory damages cap imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). She asserts front pay is an equitable remedy exempt from the cap. Because Channon's contention implicates the interpretation of federal statutes, our review is for correction of errors of law. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Iowa 2000). Channon's sex discrimination claim is premised on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. That statute pertinently provides that [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's... sex.... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). That statute also pertinently provides that [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to limit, segregate, or classify his employees ... in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's ... sex.... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2). Channon's retaliation claim is premised on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. That statute pertinently provides: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a), significantly expands the monetary relief potentially available to plaintiffs who would have been entitled to back pay under prior law. Before 1991, for example, monetary relief for a discriminatorily discharged employee generally included only an amount equal to the wages the employee would have earned from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement, along with lost fringe benefits such as vacation pay and pension benefits. United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 239, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 1873, 119 L.Ed.2d 34 (1992). Under § 102, however, a Title VII plaintiff who wins a back pay award may also seek compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. [42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3).] In addition, when it is shown that the employer acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the [plaintiff's] federally protected rights, [42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1)], a plaintiff may recover punitive damages. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 253-54, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1491, 128 L.Ed.2d 229, 245 (1994). However, [42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)] imposes limits, varying with the size of the employer, on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded to an individual plaintiff. Thus, the sum of such damages awarded a plaintiff may not exceed $50,000 for employers with between 14 and 100 employees; $100,000 for employers with between 101 and 200 employees; $200,000 for employers with between 200 and 500 employees; and $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees. Id. at 254 n. 6, 114 S.Ct. at 1491 n. 6, 128 L.Ed.2d at 245 n. 6. There is no dispute that $300,000 is the relevant cap in this case. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). The question is whether front pay damages fall within the term future pecuniary damages as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). If so, such damages would be subject to the $300,000 cap. The term front pay is not found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, courts have defined the concept to mean the amount of pay the plaintiff would have received had [he or she] continued in [his or her] position after a judgment in [his or her] favor. Eileen Kuklis, Comment, The Future of Front Pay Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991: Will it be Subject to the Damage Caps? 60 Alb. L.Rev. 465, 468 (1996) [hereinafter Kuklis]; see also Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193, 1203 (6th Cir.1997) (`Front pay' is widely defined as the salary that an employee would have received had he or she not been subjected to unlawful discrimination of his or her employer, subject to the employee's mitigating his or her damages.). Front pay is a form of relief that assumes the plaintiff would have continued in [his or her] position absent unlawful actions by the defendant. Kuklis at 469. The 1964 Act did not expressly provide for a damages award in the form of front pay. Id; see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5g. Nevertheless, before the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, courts hearing Title VII actions often awarded front pay, in lieu of reinstatement, where reinstatement was deemed inappropriate or merely delayed by the defendant and the award of back pay had failed to make the plaintiff `whole.' Kuklis at 469 (footnote omitted); see Scarfo v. Cabletron Sys., Inc., 54 F.3d 931, 954 (1st Cir.1995) (holding that [i]n a Title VII case, the court has discretion to award front pay from the date of judgment forward when reinstatement is impracticable or impossible). In providing for front pay in Title VII cases, courts often treated the remedy as equitable in nature. In doing so, the courts have relied on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (providing that the court may order reinstatement or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate). See EEOC v. Gen. Lines, Inc., 865 F.2d 1555, 1561 (10th Cir.1989). As mentioned, however, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 imposed a cap on recovery of compensatory damages ... for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Compensatory damages awarded under the Act excludes back pay, interest on back pay, or any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)]. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(2) (emphasis added). In relevant part, § 706(g) provides: If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay ... or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1)(A) (emphasis added). 2. Analysis. In deciding whether front pay is subject to the compensatory damages caps, the federal circuits which have decided the question present the issue this way: Is front pay compensatory damages... for future pecuniary losses or is it any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g)i.e., any other equitable relief that the court deems appropriate? Here the district court held that front pay constituted compensatory damages... for future pecuniary losses and therefore subject to the damages cap. We need not dwell on this issue because our holding on the allocation issue in division II.B of this opinion renders this issue moot. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has recently held that front pay is any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 1946, 1952, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2001). Front pay, is therefore not subject to the damages cap, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. Id.
The jury reached a verdict in favor of Channon against UPS on her Title VII claims for sex discrimination and retaliation. The jury also reached a verdict in favor of Channon against UPS on her equal pay claim. The jury, however, rejected her Title VII claim of sexual harassment. On her Title VII claims, the jury awarded Channon damages as follows: Past Medical Expenses $ 9,200 Future Medical Expenses 1,620 Back Pay 141,408 Front Pay 245,644 Past Emotional Distress 125,000 Future Emotional Distress 5,000 Total Compensatory Damages $ 527,872 ____________________ ___________ Total Punitive Damages $80,220,000 On her equal pay claim, the jury awarded Channon $14,605. On her state civil rights claim, the district court awarded Channon the same compensatory damages as the jury awarded on the Title VII claims, i.e., $527,872. The court did not award Channon punitive damages because under the state civil rights action, punitive damages are not allowed. In a posttrial ruling, the district court concluded that because the compensatory damages award, including front pay, exceeded the $300,000 cap, the court could not enter judgment on the punitive damages award. The court then entered judgment on Channon's federal claims broken down as follows: $300,000 permitted by the cap; back pay in the amount of $141,408 (which is not subject to the cap); $9200 for past medical expenses (which is not subject to the cap); and $14,605 as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (which is not subject to the cap), for a total of $465,213. The court did not allow the $14,605 the jury awarded on the equal pay claim because that amount was already included in the back pay award. However, because the jury found UPS's conduct was willful, the court awarded Channon $14,605 as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In its posttrial ruling, the court ordered that [p]ayment of the state law judgment shall satisfy the judgment on the verdict on the federal claims. Channon therefore ended up with a judgment of $527,872, the amount of the state judgment, and nothing for punitive damages. In an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b) motion, Channon challenged the court's ruling. She contended that if the cap is imposed, it should only be applied to the punitive damages award, and not to the compensatory damages awarded her on her state civil rights claim. In ruling on Channon's motion, the court explained her position this way: [P]laintiff contends she is entitled to uncapped damages in the amount of $527,872 under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and an additional $300,000 in punitive damages under Title VII. Plaintiff argues the Court's order imposes an artificial cap to damages under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, disregards its compensatory scheme and totally disregards the jury verdict. Plaintiff argues the court permitted the defendant to escape liability for punitive damages by subsuming the punitive damages in the state award of compensatory damages. Plaintiff argues the Court should reallocate the jury verdict of compensatory damages for non-economic losses and future pecuniary losses to its award of damages under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and apply the statutory damage cap of section 1981a, not to non-economic losses and future pecuniary losses, but only to the punitive damages award. In this way, Plaintiff can avoid the Congressional cap on compensatory damages. She can recover her compensatory damages under state law and her punitive damages under federal law. The district court concluded that although some federal authority supported her position, other better-reasoned federal authority did not. The court determined that under the procedural circumstances of this case, Channon could not prevail on her claim to reallocate damages. On appeal, Channon reasserts the position she took in the district court. What we have here is not a true allocation case. Generally, allocation becomes necessary when the jury returns a general verdict on both state and federal claims without any allocation of the damages to those claims. The court is then left with the decision on how to allocate those damages to the claims. See, e.g., Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 509 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that where jury returned general verdict and found for plaintiff under Title VII and under the state civil rights statute, district court had discretion to allocate all of the compensatory damages, front pay, and back pay to plaintiff's state law claim, while allocating punitive damages award to plaintiff's Title VII claim). Allocation may also be necessary where the jury has by special verdict awarded damages on each claim, under identical legal standards and instructions, but the compensatory damages on the federal claim are above the caps. See, e.g., Martini v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Assn'n, 178 F.3d 1336, 1349 (D.C.Cir.1999), cert dismissed, 528 U.S. 1147, 120 S.Ct. 1155, 145 L.Ed.2d 1065 (2000) (holding that where jury allocated damages under the Title VII claim and the state civil rights claim and damages on the Title VII claim exceeded the cap, the district court should have reallocated those damages to the state claim). Here, no allocation is necessary because the elements for the compensatory damage award and the amount awarded for each of those elements were the same for both the Title VII claims and the ICRA claims. Duplication of damages, however, is an issue. See Team Central, Inc. v. Teamco, Inc., 271 N.W.2d 914, 925 (Iowa 1978) (noting that [t]he purpose of damages is to restore an injured party to the position he enjoyed before his injury, and that therefore [d]uplicate or overlapping damages are to be avoided). To avoid such duplication, we need only recognize the compensatory damages awarded on the ICRA claims and ignore the compensatory damages award on the Title VII claims. What the district court ruled was that payment of the judgment on the state claims satisfies the judgment for all damages including punitive damages on the federal claims. Because the ICRA does not permit punitive damages, the district court awarded no such damages. Therefore, there was no need to avoid duplication of punitive damages. Doing what the district court did effectively limits our prerogative to provide greater remedies under our civil rights statute than those available under Title VII. See Martini, 178 F.3d at 1349-50. This result would be contrary to the express terms of Title VII: Nothing in [Title VII] shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any person from liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any present or future law of any State.... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7; see Martini, 178 F.3d at 1350; see also Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 576 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that Title VII damages cap does not apply to discrimination claims under state law). And, as the court in Martini observed, [o]ther than traditional judicial authority to reduce damages due to excessiveness, the power to limit total damages in cases where plaintiffs sue under both federal and local law belongs to Congress and [the state legislature] not this court. Martini, 178 F.3d at 1350. Finally, we agree with the Second Circuit's preference for permitting a plaintiff to recover under the liability theory that provides the plaintiff the most complete recovery. See Magee v. United States Lines, Inc., 976 F.2d 821, 822 (2d Cir. 1992). This preference is consistent with our goal of damages in civil cases: to place the injured party in as favorable a position as though no wrong had occurred. See R.E.T. Corp. v. Frank Paxton Co., 329 N.W.2d 416, 421 (Iowa 1983). The federal case the district court primarily relied on in refusing Channon's request for allocation was Martini v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 977 F.Supp. 464 (D.D.C.1997). We note, however, that in that case, the appellate court rejected the federal district court's analysis refusing allocation in favor of permitting allocation. Martini, 178 F.3d at 1349-50. We conclude Channon is entitled to judgment against UPS for the uncapped damages in the amount of $527,872 under the ICRA and for an additional $300,000 in capped punitive damages under Title VII. (The jury awarded $80,220,000 in punitive damages.) The district court erred in concluding otherwise. In addition, Channon is entitled to $14,605 as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) because such damages are not subject to the cap.
Channon next contends that the $300,000 damages cap imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) is unconstitutional. She asserts the cap violates (1) her right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution, (2) the separation of powers doctrine under Article III of the Federal Constitution, (3) her right to equal protection of the laws, and (4) her right to due process. The district court rejected those arguments in a posttrial ruling and for reasons that follow, so do we.
This court reviews constitutional claims de novo. Statutes are cloaked with a strong presumption of constitutionality and, thus, a party challenging a statute carries a heavy burden of rebutting this presumption. `A person challenging a statute must negate every reasonable basis upon which the statute could be upheld as constitutional.' 616 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted). 2. Seventh Amendment. Channon argues that the damages cap violates her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because the cap effectively vetoes any jury award of compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $300,000. The Seventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. U.S. Const. amend. VII (emphasis added). Among other reasons, the district court rejected Channon's Seventh Amendment claim on the ground that the Seventh Amendment governs proceedings only in federal courts and not in state courts. We agree. Channon goes to great lengths to show how the cap violates the Seventh Amendment. However, she does little to challenge the district court's ruling regarding the applicability of that constitutional provision. Her only argument is that Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996), which the district court relied on, does not squarely answer the question. In Gasperini, the Supreme Court stated: The Seventh Amendment, which governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state court, bears not only on the allocation of trial functions between judge and jury ...; it also controls the allocation of authority to review verdicts, the issue of concern here. 518 U.S. at 432, 116 S.Ct. at 2222, 135 L.Ed.2d at 677 (emphasis added). The language makes clear the Supreme Court's position that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state court. Nevertheless, Channon argues this language is dictum. To whatever extent this may be true, prior Supreme Court precedent, including the precedent relied upon by the Supreme Court in making the above statement, supports the conclusion that the Seventh Amendment does not apply to state court proceedings. See, e.g., Pearson v. Yewdall, 5 Otto 289, 95 U.S. 294, 296, 24 L.Ed. 436, 437 (1877) (We have held over and over again that art. 7 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States relating to trials by jury applies only to the courts of the United States....); Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. (88 U.S.) 532, 557, 22 L.Ed. 487, 492 (1874); see also Elliott v. City of Wheat Ridge, 49 F.3d 1458, 1459 (10th Cir.1995); In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir.1994); Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corp., 947 F.2d 95, 99 & n. 1 (4th Cir.1991). Additionally, as UPS points out, there is Supreme Court precedent for the very type of issue before us. In Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis, the Supreme Court had before it state constitutional and statutory law which provided that after a case has been under submission to a jury for a period of twelve hours without a unanimous verdict, five sixths of the jury are authorized to reach a verdict, which is entitled to the legal effect of a unanimous verdict at common law. 241 U.S. 211, 216, 36 S.Ct. 595, 596, 60 L.Ed. 961, 963 (1916). The issue was whether applying this law to a cause of action under the federal Employers' Liability Act brought in state court violated the Seventh Amendment. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment requirement of a unanimous verdict as mandated by prior judicial decision did not control state court enforcement of federal law. See generally id. at 216-23, 36 S.Ct. at 596-99, 60 L.Ed. at 963-65. In reaching this conclusion, the Court again recognized that the Seventh Amendment applies only to federal court proceedings and not to state court proceedings. Id. at 217, 36 S.Ct. at 596, 60 L.Ed. at 963. The importance of this case to the proceeding before us is obvious: not only is the Seventh Amendment inapplicable to state court proceedings brought under state law, but it is also inapplicable to state court proceedings brought under federal lawthe very situation we have here. The Fifth Circuit similarly has held that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in common-law actions does not apply to a case in state court, even though the claims are based on federal law, i.e. the Jones Act. See Linton v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, 964 F.2d 1480, 1488-89 n. 16 (5th Cir.1992). In the present case, the district court wisely observed that [p]erhaps the reason for the United States Supreme Court's consistency regarding the application of the Seventh Amendment only to federal courts stems from the clear language of the Seventh Amendment, which states [i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. Because we hold that the Seventh Amendment does not apply here, we do not reach the question whether the $300,000 damages cap imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) violates the Seventh Amendment. 3. Separation of powers. Channon also contends that the damages cap infringes on the doctrine of separation of powers guaranteed by Article III of the Federal Constitution. She concedes that Congress has the power to decide which remedies are available for violations of a statute. However, she argues that while Congress has the power to limit the types of remedies, it has no power to limit the amount awarded. Specifically, she argues, the damages cap violates the separation of powers doctrine by undercutting the power and obligation of the judiciary to reduce an excessive verdict, based on the facts of a specific case. Article III, section 1 of the Federal Constitution begins by stating that [t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. The separation of powers doctrine derives from Article III and requires that each of the three branches of the federal government remain entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others.... Humprey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629, 55 S.Ct. 869, 874, 79 L.Ed. 1611, 1620 (1935); accord Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S.Ct. 647, 659, 102 L.Ed.2d 714, 736 (1989). The three branches of government, however, need not be entirely separate and distinct. Mistretta, 488 U.S. at 380, 109 S.Ct. at 659, 102 L.Ed.2d at 736. Rather, the three branches of government have a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence the absence of which `would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.' Id. at 381, 109 S.Ct. at 659, 102 L.Ed.2d at 736 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121, 96 S.Ct. 612, 683, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, 746 (1976)). The separation-of-powers jurisprudence grew out of the concern over the encroachment and aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of another. Id. at 382, 109 S.Ct. at 660, 102 L.Ed.2d at 737. For this reason, the Supreme Court has struck down provisions of law that either accrete to a single Branch powers more appropriately diffused among separate Branches or that undermine the authority and independence of one or another coordinate Branch. Id. By the same token, [the Supreme Court] ha[s] upheld statutory provisions that to some degree commingle the functions of the Branches, but that pose no danger of either aggrandizement or encroachment. Id. To that end, separation-of-powers jurisprudence has consistently recognized that when Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies.... Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 83, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2878, 73 L.Ed.2d 598, 623 (1982) (plurality opinion). In passing the 1991 amendments to Title VII, Congress permitted additional remedies in the form of compensatory and punitive damages but then decided to limit the available damages awarded based on the size of the employer. Channon does not dispute the power of Congress to designate the type of remedy, but rather disputes the power of Congress to designate the amount of damages to be awarded. In rejecting a similar argument, the Sixth Circuit said: Plaintiff cross-appeals on the basis that the statutory cap on compensatory damages found at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a is an unconstitutional violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine. Plaintiff argues that by creating the statutory cap, Congress impermissibly encroached upon the judiciary and its traditional responsibility for assuring against excessive verdicts on a case-by-case basis. We do not find this argument persuasive. Congress created Title VII, and Congress may designate the remedies under Title VII. The fact that the judicial branch is limited in the amount of damages which it may award does not mean its ability to decide cases is being impaired by Congress. Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 213 F.3d 933, 945-46 (6th Cir.2000), rev'd on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. at 1952, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (citation omitted); see also Dobrich v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 106 F.Supp.2d 386, 396 (D.Conn. 2000). We agree with this analysis and conclude that Congress, in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D), has not violated the separation of powers doctrine under Article III of the Federal Constitution. Under these circumstances, the damages cap does not threaten encroachment or aggrandizement by Congress at the expense of the judiciary. As the district court determined here, [s]ince the statute does not unduly infringe on the province of the judiciary but instead expresses the will of Congress with respect to available statutory remedies under Title VII, no constitutional infirmity exists. 4. Equal protection. Channon argues that 42 U.S.C. § 1981a gives women the right to recover compensatory and punitive damages when they suffer intentional discrimination on the job, but limits the amount of recovery. On the other hand, she argues, victims of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin are permitted to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 without any upper limit. For this reason she argues that the damages cap imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) violates her right to equal protection. At the outset, we note Channon does not specify which equal protection provision she meant to invokethe one found in the Fourteenth Amendment or the implied equal protection clause inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because the statute at issue is a federal one, we assume she meant the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the federal government. See Pollard, 213 F.3d at 946. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that [n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. The equal protection clause requires that similarly-situated persons be treated alike. Morrow, 616 N.W.2d at 548. If people are not similarly situated, their dissimilar treatment does not violate equal protection. Id. In Pollard, the Sixth Circuit rejected the same argument that Channon raises here. 213 F.3d at 946. The court did so concluding that plaintiffs bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a are not similarly situated with 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claimants. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned: Plaintiff also argues that the statutory damages provision also violates the Equal Protection Clause of [the Fifth Amendment] in that it unfairly discriminates among those persons who wish to vindicate their rights with respect to racial discrimination and those who wish to vindicate their rights with respect to gender discrimination.... 42 U.S.C. § 1981a places a $300,000 statutory cap on all intentional discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, religion, or disability (as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act). The statute is inherently equitable on its face. The difference in the application of this statute in situations of gender or race discrimination occurs due to a provision in the Act which states that nothing in section 1981a is to be construed as in any way limiting the remedies provided in section 1981 itself, which does not limit recovery for intentional discrimination based upon race or national origin. However, section 1981 provides relief for a different type of claim than encompassed by the remedies available to plaintiff in section 1981a. Section 1981 provides for relief from discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, while section 1981a provides for relief purely from intentional discrimination in the employment context. While section 1981 includes contracts for employment, it also includes contracts for admission to organizations, insurance and other business contracts with private persons or corporations, and admission to schools. Plaintiff cannot therefore be said to be similarly situated with section 1981 claimants. Id. (Emphasis added.) Based on the same reasoning, we conclude Channon is not similarly situated with section 1981 claimants. Her equal protection challenge must therefore fail. The district court was correct in rejecting this challenge. 5. Due process. As to her final constitutional challenge, Channon contends that the damages cap violates her guarantees of due process. As with her equal protection challenge, Channon does not specify whether she is making a due process challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. As mentioned, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriv[ing] a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. Because Channon challenges a federal statute, her challenge implicates the Fifth rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. Channon relies on one case to support her position: Morris v. Savoy, 61 Ohio St.3d 684, 691, 576 N.E.2d 765, 771 (1991). In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a state statutory cap on damages for medical malpractice violated a state constitutional due process provision. The court's rationale was that the statute was unreasonable and arbitrary because it imposed the costs of the intended benefit of the statute to the general public solely upon the class consisting of those most severely injured by medical malpractice. Channon asserts we can use the identical rationale regarding the damages cap here. The district court rejected this argument and so do we. As the district court properly pointed out, the Ohio Supreme Court was interpreting its own constitution. The court had every right to accord Ohio citizens more rights under the Ohio Constitution than such citizens were entitled under the Federal Constitution. Additionally, as the district court noted, Channon cites no authority supporting her contention that 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Channon has the burden to establish her due process claim by showing that Congress acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 83, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2636, 57 L.Ed.2d 595, 618 (1978). She has not met that burden. In rejecting the argument that Congress had no rational basis for enacting the damages cap, the Sixth Circuit explained: In a political compromise, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was limited in the remedies which it would provide due to a belief that unlimited damages for all forms of discrimination would force employers to institute hiring quotas for their own economic safety. See 137 Cong. Rec. S15472-01 (discussing the fear of quotas that drove the compromise which was reached in the Civil Rights Act of 1991). The adoption of the provision saving the remedies available under section 1981 was rationally related to the legitimate purpose of creating reasonable damages available to all other victims of intentional discrimination without being forced to limit the damages already available to victims of racial and ethnic discrimination. Pollard, 213 F.3d at 946. What we have here is a classic example of an economic regulationa legislative effort to structure and accommodate `the burdens and benefits of economic life.' Duke, 438 U.S. at 83, 98 S.Ct. at 2635, 57 L.Ed.2d at 618 (quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2892, 49 L.Ed.2d 752, 766 (1976)). The Supreme Court has previously held similar types of legislation motivated by similar concerns do not violate the due process protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment. See Duke, 438 U.S. at 84-87, 98 S.Ct. at 2636-2637, 57 L.Ed.2d at 618-20 (holding that cap on liability for nuclear accidents did not violate Fifth Amendment due process as arbitrary or irrational). We conclude, as did the district court, that the damages cap found at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process requirements.
Finally, Channon contends that the district court erred in sustaining UPS's motion for summary judgment, dismissing her claim of tortious infliction of emotional distress. She argues this court's decision in Greenland v. Fairtron, 500 N.W.2d 36 (1993), which the district court relied on in dismissing her claim, is flawed and we should revisit it. She asserts in the alternative that even if Greenland is good law, it does not require dismissal of her emotional distress claim. 1. Scope of Review. We review a ruling granting a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Knudson v. City of Decorah, 622 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Iowa 2000). Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 237(c). 2. Greenland. In Greenland v. Fairtron Corp ., we held that the ICRA, Iowa Code chapter 216 (formerly chapter 601A), provides the exclusive remedy for particular conduct prohibited under that statute. 500 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa 1993). Preemption occurs unless the claims are separate and independent, and therefore incidental, causes of action. Id. If, under the facts of the case, success on the non-ICRA claims requires proof of discrimination, such claims are not separate and independent. Id. The test is whether, in light of the pleadings, discrimination is made an element of the non-ICRA claims. Channon asserts we improperly decided Greenland because we relied on inaccurate characterizations of a prior holding in Northrup v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 1985). She asserts that Northrup does not stand for the proposition that the ICRA preempted a claim of tortious infliction of emotional distress. Rather, she argues, in Northrup this court actually recognized the claim and upheld its dismissal only because the conduct alleged was not sufficiently outrageous. We agree with UPS that under the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court. See Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 306 (Iowa 2000). However, stare decisis does not prevent the court from reconsidering, repairing, correcting or abandoning past judicial announcements when error is manifest, including error in the interpretation of statutory enactments. Id. Here, we see no reason to revisit our holding in Greenland. We think the conclusion this court reached in Greenland is a correct interpretation and application of the ICRA. Additionally, we disagree with Channon's assessment that Greenland is inconsistent with Northrup. In the latter case, this court stated that the procedure under the civil rights act is exclusive, and a claimant asserting a discriminatory practice must pursue the remedy provided by the act. Northrup, 372 N.W.2d at 197. Several cases have since held the same. See, e.g., Borschel v. City of Perry, 512 N.W.2d 565, 567-68 (Iowa 1994) (holding that civil rights statute preempts claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when the claim is premised on discriminatory acts); Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 639 (Iowa 1990) (holding that civil rights statute preempted claims of wrongful discharge, unfair employment practices, and termination in bad faith and actual malice because all were premised on religious discrimination); Hamilton v. First Baptist Elderly Hous. Found., 436 N.W.2d 336, 341 (Iowa 1989) (concluding that Northrup held that the civil rights statute preempts independent common law actions also premised on discrimination). Finally, in Greenland, we addressed the apparent inconsistency Channon now raises between our Greenland and Northrup decisions: Contrary to Greenland's contention, our decisions in Vaughn and Northrup did not implicitly allow separate claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress in conjunction with chapter 601A discrimination claims. Preemption of the emotional distress claims was never raised or considered in either appeal. 500 N.W.2d at 38. 3. Did the district court err in its application of Greenland? Channon's fallback position is that the district court erred in ruling that the ICRA preempted her emotional distress claim. For reasons that follow, we disagree. As mentioned, the ICRA preempts her emotional distress claim if in light of the pleadings, discrimination is made an element of such claim. Greenland, 500 N.W.2d at 38. Therefore, the key is Channon's characterization of her emotional distress claim as stated in her pleadings. In her petition, Channon alleges that UPS discriminated against [her] with respect to the conditions of her employment, benefits and advancements on the basis of her sex and have subjected [her] to continual sexual harassment and have allowed a sexually hostile and offensive work atmosphere to exist at [her] place of employment and have retaliated against her for her complaints about discrimination and harassment. Additionally, she alleges that UPS's conduct includes, but is not limited to unwelcome sexual advances, verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature and differential treatment based on sex. In her emotional distress claim, Channon incorporates these allegations and others, all of which pertain to her Title VII, ICRA, and equal pay claims. We agree with the district court that Channon's pleadings clearly establish that the operative facts which she alleges give rise to her claims under the ICRA are the same as those upon which she relies as giving rise to her emotional distress claim. In short, her emotional distress claim is based on her allegations of discrimination. The ICRA therefore preempts her claim, and the district court was correct in so ruling. E. Punitive damages. UPS argues that even if the damages cap is unconstitutional as Channon contends, we must still set aside the punitive damages award for two reasons. First, UPS contends that Channon failed to prove malice or reckless indifference to support her award for punitive damages. Second, UPS contends that the award of punitive damages cannot be upheld against it on a vicarious basis because it made a good-faith effort to prevent discrimination in the work place. We reject both challenges because UPS did not raise those issues with the district court in its motion for directed verdict.