Court Opinion

ID: 9689945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:50:09.859082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.845251
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I concur with Division I. of the majority decision. I agree the plaintiff should have the right to pursue his claim for wrongful discharge in the State’s court.
I cannot, however, agree with the majority’s decision there is evidence of conduct of the defendant so outrageous and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. See Tomash v. John Deere Indus. Equip. Co., 399 N.W.2d 387, 392-93 (Iowa 1987); M.H. By and Through Callahan v. State, 385 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Iowa 1986); Reihmann v. Foerstner, 375 N.W.2d 677, 681 (Iowa 1985); Northrup v. Farmland Industries, 372 N.W.2d 193,198 (Iowa 1985).
The majority has found as plaintiff argues that there is evidence defendant’s agents fabricated the reason for plaintiff’s discharge. The alleged evidence of a fabricated reason comes from testimony of Mr. Berman, defendant’s employee, at plaintiff’s unemployment hearing. That testimony as set forth by plaintiff in the appendix is as follows:
LYLE RODENBURG: Well, form 46 is the official reason for discharge?
BERMAN: Yes.
LR: But you’re here today, testifying under oath, contrary to form 46, the official discharge policy; haven’t you?
BERMAN: No. that was written up — I know what that says. I was told by my legal department to write it up that way. But, I also informed them that it was done — and the fact that the company policy was broken twice.
LR: Who told you to write it up that way, sir, and why did you have occasion to consult with a legal consultant that day in regard to Mr. Coontz?
BERMAN: Okay. Right now, I called up Marlena Earl in our legal department.
LR: Marlena?
BERMAN: Marlena Earl.
LR: She a lawyer?
BERMAN: She’s in our legal department. I assume she’s a lawyer.
LR: And she told you to do what?
BERMAN: To write the resume — or the wording to his discharge the way I wrote it up.
LR: And that, then, from your legal department was the legal reason for his discharge was reallocation of work force? On form 46, Exhibit No. 4 here—
BERMAN: Yes, that’s written there, sir.
LR: But here, today, you are maintaining an entirely different policy to this Hearing Officer under oath; aren’t you, sir?
*228BERMAN: No, because it’s — again, the major reason why I released Mr. Coontz was because of the discount policy.
******
LR: I forgot the last question. But isn’t it true that you were asked to discharge Mr. Coontz for non-performing?
BERMAN: Yes.
LR: By Mr. Ward?
BERMAN: Yes.
The only thing the testimony shows is there may have been several reasons for the discharge and defendant sought and seeks to rely on those reasons most favorable to its position. That is not outrageous conduct.
DONIELSON, J., joins this dissent.