Opinion ID: 1843594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Protected ActivityReporting Sexual Harassment

Text: Papa John's argues the Estate's retaliation claim cannot prevail because there was no evidence to show Shields's subordinate was sexually harassed. Papa John's points out she never complainedformally or otherwiseabout having sex with Shields. Where there is no underlying harassment, Papa John's claims, there can be no retaliation. In the district court, however, Papa John's only argued whether Harris suffered adverse employment action; in a reply brief, Papa John's expressly permitted the court to assume Harris was engaged in protected activity. Nonetheless, Papa John's now cites Sievers v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co., 581 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Iowa 1998), for the proposition that an Iowa appellate court can uphold a lower court ruling on any ground, whether urged in the district court or not. We expressly disavowed this practice in DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 60-61 (Iowa 2002). We will not affirm a ruling on a ground not urged in the district court. DeVoss, 648 N.W.2d at 61. A party is not allowed to sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court. State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999). We do not consider, then, whether Harris engaged in protected activity, and nothing in this opinion shall be construed to so hold. We simply reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Estate's Title VII and ICRA retaliation claims, insofar as the chest shot may constitute an adverse employment action attributable to Papa John's.