Opinion ID: 2045403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public Policy Exception to Employment At-Will.

Text: Next, Phipps argues that the district court erred in determining that his situation does not come within the articulated public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Specifically, Phipps claims he was terminated for making an inquiry, under Iowa Code chapter 91A, into why the gainsharing was not available to him. We do not agree. Employment relationships in Iowa are presumed to be at-will. Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277, 281 (Iowa 1995). In the absence of a valid employment contract, an employer may discharge an employee at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all. Huegerich v. IBP, Inc., 547 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1996); Anderson, 540 N.W.2d at 281. We have recognized only two narrow exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the discharge clearly violates a well-recognized and defined public policy of the state; and (2) where a unilateral contract is created by an employer's handbook or policy manual. Huegerich, 547 N.W.2d at 220 (quoting Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Iowa 1988)). The public policy exception is based on the theory that employers should not be allowed to fire employees for reasons that violate public policy. Borschel v. City of Perry, 512 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Iowa 1994). Such policies may be expressed in the constitution and the statutes of Iowa. Id. An employer may be subject to tort liability for the retaliatory discharge of an employee when the discharge violates a well-recognized and defined public policy of Iowa. Lara v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Iowa 1994). We need not decide whether any public policy was violated in this case because Phipps offered insufficient proof that Blue Cross retaliated against him for making an inquiry under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. Other than the fact that he was terminated approximately one month after he filed his grievance, Phipps has failed to produce sufficient evidence that he was fired because he questioned the sixty-day probation. Phipps even conceded that there is no evidence to support his retaliation claim other than the fact that the termination followed the filing of the grievance. This evidence, without more, is insufficient to generate a jury question on retaliation. See Hulme v. Barrett, 480 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Iowa 1992) (relying on Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1314 (6th Cir.1989) ([T]he mere fact that an adverse employment decision occurs after a charge of discrimination is not, standing alone, sufficient to support a finding that the adverse employment decision was in retaliation to the discrimination claim.)). The record reflects that Phipps was discharged because of his unacceptable performance and repeated disciplinary problems.