Fink v. Kitzman, C 93-0127.

Citation881 F. Supp. 1347
Decision Date29 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. C 93-0127.,C 93-0127.
PartiesBeverly FINK, Plaintiff, v. Susan KITZMAN, Grundy County, Iowa, and the Grundy County Board of Supervisors, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roger J. Kuhle and John O. Haraldson of the Law Offices of Roger J. Kuhle, P.C., in West Des Moines, IA, for plaintiff, Beverly Fink.

Nathan A. Callahan of Dunakey, Klatt & Callahan, P.C., in Waterloo, IA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, District Judge.

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.   INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................... 1356
                II.  STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................. 1357
                III. FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................... 1358
                     A. Undisputed Facts ............................................ 1358
                     B. Disputed Facts .............................................. 1359
                IV.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................. 1360
                
                     A. Age Discrimination And Reductions In Force .................................... 1360
                         1. Fink's Federal Age Discrimination Claim ................................... 1360
                            a. Administrative prerequisites to suit under the ADEA .................... 1360
                            b. The analytical framework for claims of age discrimination .............. 1361
                            c. The prima facie case under the ADEA in a reduction-in-force case ....... 1363
                            d. Fink's prima facie case and showing of pretext ......................... 1364
                         2. Age Discrimination Under Iowa Law ......................................... 1366
                     B. Disability Discrimination ..................................................... 1367
                         1. The Origins Of The ADA .................................................... 1368
                         2. Disability Discrimination Under The ADA ................................... 1371
                            a. Analytical framework for ADA claims .................................... 1373
                            b. The prima facie case under the ADA ..................................... 1373
                            c. Fink's prima facie case ................................................ 1376
                         2. Elements Of A Disability Discrimination Claim Under Iowa Law .............. 1377
                            a. Protected disability ................................................... 1378
                            b. Fink's disability ...................................................... 1378
                     C. Retaliation For Filing A Workers Compensation Claim ........................... 1379
                         1. Recognition Of The Public Policy Exception Under Iowa Law ................. 1379
                         2. Discharge For Filing A Workers Compensation Claim ......................... 1381
                     D. Intentional Interference With Employment Contract ............................. 1382
                         1. Interference With A Contract .............................................. 1382
                         2. Interference With Business Advantages Or Relations ........................ 1382
                     E. Breach Of Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing ............................. 1383
                     F. Implied Contract .............................................................. 1384
                         1. The implied contract exception to at-will employment ...................... 1385
                         2. Fink's Implied Contract Claim ............................................. 1386
                     G. Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation Or Opinions ..................... 1387
                     H. Fink's Damages Claims ......................................................... 1387
                            a. Punitive damages under Iowa Code Ch. 216 and Ch. 670 ................... 1387
                               i.  Punitive damages under Iowa Code Ch. 216 ........................... 1388
                               ii. Municipal immunity from punitive damages under Iowa Code Ch. 670 ... 1388
                            b. Liability for liquidated damages under the ADEA ........................ 1390
                            c. Kitzman's liability .................................................... 1391
                     I. Immunity Of The Grundy County Board Of Supervisors ............................ 1393
                         1. Standards for quasi-judicial immunity ..................................... 1393
                         2. Quasi-judicial immunity of elected boards ................................. 1395
                         3. The Board's claim of quasi-judicial immunity .............................. 1398
                V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 1398
                

In this employment discrimination case, the discharged employee has proceeded in the now typical fashion by presenting a cornucopia of federal and state statutory claims and state common-law causes of action. The employer has also responded in kind with a bounty of defenses, including the familiar employer's incantation that the plaintiff has failed to generate a prima facie case of discrimination or failed to allege a claim supportable in law or fact. These claims and defenses must, of course, be treated with proper consideration. However, in addition to these familiar issues in employment litigation, the employer has introduced novel issues of common-law and statutory immunity of municipal employers and officials and quasi-judicial immunity of a local elected governmental board, which acted as an appellate body reviewing the employee's grievance arising from her discharge.

A former county employee has brought suit against her former supervisor, the county treasurer, as well as the county and the county board of supervisors alleging age and disability discrimination in violation of both federal and state law, plus state-law claims of retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim, intentional interference with an employment relationship, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a covenant or implied contract to discharge only for good cause, and retaliation for political opinions or affiliations.

The county board of supervisors has moved for summary judgment on the ground that it has absolute quasi-judicial immunity, because it acted only in a judicial capacity in reviewing the county treasurer's decision to terminate the plaintiff. All defendants have moved for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiff cannot make out the necessary prima facie case on her discrimination claims, and further on the ground that they have offered an unrebutted legitimate reason, a reduction in force (RIF), for the termination. Defendants also raise specific arguments that the remaining claims are unsupportable in either law or fact, and attacking plaintiff's assertions of liability and punitive or liquidated damages against them.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Beverly Fink filed her petition at law in this matter in the Iowa district court in and for Grundy County on April 23, 1993, and demanded jury trial of all of the issues presented. Counsel for defendants entered an appearance in the state court proceedings on May 5, 1993, and filed a notice of removal of this action to this federal court on May 10, 1993. Defendants answered the petition at law in state court on May 13, 1993, then filed a copy of the answer in federal court as a supplement to their Rule 20 list of pleadings filed in state court. On May 26, 1993, defendants also filed a jury demand on all issues presented in the petition, now properly called a complaint.

Fink's complaint is in eight counts each alleging violations of either federal or state law, or both, arising from her discharge from her position as a "motor vehicle specialist" in the Grundy County Treasurer's Office on August 31, 1992, when she was 52 years old, after approximately twenty-five years of employment with the Treasurer's Office. The defendants are Susan Kitzman, who was the Grundy County Treasurer and Fink's supervisor, the Grundy County Board of Supervisors, and Grundy County, Iowa.

Count I of the complaint alleges that Fink was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ? 621 et seq., and similar provisions of Iowa's Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code ? 216.6. Count II alleges disability discrimination in violation of Iowa Code ? 216.6, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ? 12101 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. 102-166, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1071. This count asserts that Fink's disability is carpal tunnel syndrome, for which she underwent surgery in January of 1992. Count III alleges retaliatory discharge as the result of filing a workers compensation claim in connection with Fink's carpal tunnel syndrome. Count IV alleges intentional interference on the part of Kitzman with Fink's employment relationship with Grundy County. Count V alleges that Fink's termination was in breach of an implied in fact covenant of good faith and fair dealing which required that she be discharged only for good cause. Count VI alleges that Fink's termination was in violation of an implied in law covenant or contract of good faith and fair dealing which required that Fink be discharged only for good cause. Count VII alleges that Fink's discharge violated an implied unilateral contract based on an ordinance of Grundy County which required that Fink be discharged only for good cause. Count VIII, the final count of the complaint, alleges that Fink was discharged in violation of a Grundy County ordinance that prohibits any discrimination based upon political opinions or affiliations.

On July 18, 1994, the Grundy County Board of Supervisors filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it was entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity on Fink's claims. The Board argues that it acted in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Act, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-2600 (D. N.J. 11/2/2000), Civil Action No. 97-2600.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 2 Noviembre 2000
    ...Sharrow v. Bailey, 910 F. Supp. 187 (M.D. Pa. 1995); Howe v. Hull, 873 F. Supp. 72, 78 (N.D. Ohio 1994); see also Fink v. Kitzman, 881 F. Supp. 1347, 1373-74 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (discussing prima facie case under Both the NCAA and AIC15 argue they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on......
  • Hanna v. Fleetguard, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 23 Agosto 1995
    ...tort of retaliatory discharge as being within the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine. See Fink v. Kitzman, 881 F.Supp. 1347, 1380 (N.D.Iowa 1995); Thompto v. Coborn's Inc., 871 F.Supp. 1097, 1113 (N.D.Iowa 1994); Wilcox v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 870, 87......
  • Jones Distributing Co. v. White Consol. Industries
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 15 Septiembre 1996
    ...recently considered the elements under Iowa law of tortious interference with business advantages or relations in Fink v. Kitzman, 881 F.Supp. 1347, 1382-83 (N.D.Iowa 1995). Unlike tortious interference with a contract,12 the tort of interference with business relations or advantages does n......
  • Gerdes v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 2 Diciembre 1996
    ...1249, 1263-66 (N.D.Iowa 1995); Hutchinson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 883 F.Supp. 379, 387-90 (N.D.Iowa 1995); Fink v. Kitzman, 881 F.Supp. 1347, 1368-71 (N.D.Iowa 1995). Because the court most recently reiterated this important background to an ADA claim just two months ago in Valentine ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT