Opinion ID: 1246136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Must the Allegations of the Petition be Deemed to be True?

Text: The general rule is that a motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts in the petition, and the allegations of the petition are construed in the light most favorable to the pleader. Stafford v. Valley Community School Dist., 298 N.W.2d 307, 308 (Iowa 1980); Curtis v. Board of Supervisors, 270 N.W.2d 447, 448 (Iowa 1978). Hollinrake argues that, for purposes of the judicial review proceeding, the following facts set out in his petition must be presumed to be true: 1. Hollinrake's vision in his left eye is 20/100 corrected to 20/80. 2. Hollinrake's vision in his right eye is 20/30 corrected to 20/20. 3. Hollinrake's corrected vision using both eyes is 20/20. 4. Hollinrake is fully qualified and competent to perform the duties of a deputy sheriff of Monroe County, Iowa. 5. Hollinrake's vision does not affect his ability to serve as a deputy sheriff. 6. Hollinrake successfully completed the training at the Iowa Law Enforcement academy. 7. In a civil rights case, a jury found Hollinrake able to adequately and competently perform his job as a deputy sheriff. 8. The academy has certified persons with vision the same or similar to Hollinrake as peace officers. 9. The rules of the academy define Hollinrake as being disabled under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The academy agrees that allegations 1, 2, 3, and 6 are established, but it contends that the remaining five allegations have either not been properly raised, or are irrelevant, or both. Under our view of this case, even if we accept Hollinrake's argument on this procedural matter, it would make no difference in the outcome. This is so because allegations 1, 2, and 3, which concern Hollinrake's corrected vision, and allegation 6, that Hollinrake had completed his training at the academy, are conceded by the academy. Even if we assume the truth of the remaining allegations, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, which raise Hollinrake's claims that the academy's action was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and in violation of our civil rights statute, it would make no difference in this case, because for reasons discussed below, we reject those arguments on their merits.