Haberer v. Woodbury County, 96-112
| Decision Date | 26 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-112,96-112 |
| Citation | 560 N.W.2d 571 |
| Parties | Howard HABERER, Appellant, v. WOODBURY COUNTY, Iowa, Civil Service Commission, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
MacDonald Smith and Michael L. Smith of Smith, McElwain & Wengert, Sioux City, for appellant.
Christina M. Gonzalez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and LARSON, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
In this civil service proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 341A (1995), the Woodbury County Civil Service Commission determined that the actions of the Woodbury County sheriff did not coerce deputy Howard Haberer into resigning and therefore did not constitute a constructive discharge. Although Haberer claimed that he should have been allowed to withdraw his resignation, the commission did not address that issue.
Haberer appealed to, and filed a petition for writ of certiorari in, the district court challenging the commission's decision on the constructive-discharge issue. He also raised the withdrawal-of-resignation issue. The district court concluded there was substantial record evidence to support the commission's decision on the constructive-discharge issue. The court also concluded that Iowa law does not provide for a right to withdraw a resignation that has become effective and found that Haberer's resignation was effective when he tendered it. For this reason, the court determined that the commission was not required to address this issue and saw no need to remand it to the commission. We affirm.
Haberer was a Woodbury County deputy sheriff until he resigned on July 16, 1995. He had been a deputy sheriff for about fourteen years.
In mid-1993 Haberer's marriage was dissolved and he was ordered to pay child support. At about the same time, Haberer's female friend filed criminal complaints against him because of a personal dispute. The sheriff referred the complaints to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI). Based on the DCI's investigation, Haberer was charged with five crimes. The charges, however, were unrelated to the friend's complaints.
Although the district court dismissed the charges, the special prosecutor appointed to prosecute them appealed. We affirmed the dismissal. See State v. Haberer, 532 N.W.2d 757, 758 (Iowa 1995).
While the criminal case was pending on appeal, the sheriff placed Haberer on paid suspension. The sheriff also prohibited Haberer from engaging in off-duty law enforcement work while he was on suspension.
By September 1994 Haberer had been on paid suspension for about eighteen months, and his appeal to our court was still pending. At this point, the sheriff allowed Haberer to return to work provided he agree to a 30-day-unpaid suspension and enter into a "Last Chance Agreement." Haberer agreed to the unpaid suspension and entered into the agreement, which was to last one year. Haberer contends that he requested assignment to a night patrol job through his attorney. The sheriff assigned him to an administrative job involving office work.
On July 16, 1995, Haberer received word from the Child Support Recovery Unit that his wages would be garnished because of unpaid child support. According to Haberer, this information was "the straw that broke the camel's back."
The next day Haberer orally submitted his resignation to the assistant chief, stating, "I can't do this anymore." At the same time, Haberer turned in his badge, identification, name plate, and the keys to his office and car.
After thinking over his actions and discussing it with colleagues, friends, and relatives, Haberer decided to withdraw his resignation. On July 21, 1995, four days after his resignation, Haberer tried to meet with the sheriff to withdraw the resignation. The sheriff refused to allow Haberer to do so.
On July 24, 1995, Haberer wrote to the Woodbury County Civil Service Commission requesting a hearing pursuant to Iowa Code section 341A.12. In his letter Haberer requested a hearing regarding "circumstances surrounding my termination/resignation from the Sheriff's Dept."
The commission held the hearing on August 4. Haberer and the sheriff were allowed to present their respective positions.
Primarily, Haberer argued he was constructively discharged. He claimed that the following chain of events forced him to resign: (1) the sheriff initiated a criminal investigation against him; (2) the investigation led to criminal charges, a trial, and an appeal; (3) the criminal proceedings cost him thousands of dollars to defend; (4) during a portion of the proceedings, the sheriff placed him on a paid suspension for eighteen months during which he was not allowed to perform off-duty law enforcement work; (5) as a condition of returning to work after the criminal proceedings, he agreed to a thirty-day unpaid suspension; (6) he was assigned to an administrative job for which he had no experience; (7) all these incidents led to increased stress and financial problems; and (8) in time, these incidents caused him to fail to pay his child support and to resign after he was notified that his wages would be garnished.
Haberer also insisted that he tried to withdraw his resignation but the sheriff refused to allow him to do so. Haberer argued that because other personnel working for the sheriff had been allowed to withdraw their resignations and to keep their jobs, he should have been allowed to do so too.
Later the commission issued a decision, concluding that Haberer
voluntarily resigned his deputy sheriff's position solely as a result of his wages having been garnished and that no action on the part of the sheriff's department constituted harassment or placed any undue pressure or stress upon then deputy Howard Haberer to resign so as to constitute a termination or removal.
The commission did not address Haberer's withdrawal-of-resignation issue.
Haberer appealed the commission's decision to the district court pursuant to Iowa Code section 341A.12. He also filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The court consolidated the two proceedings. Haberer again raised the constructive-discharge and the withdrawal-of-resignation issues.
Contrary to Haberer's contention, the district court concluded there was substantial evidence to support the commission's decision on the constructive-discharge issue.
On the withdrawal-of-resignation issue, Haberer contended the commission erred by not determining whether he had the right to withdraw his resignation. The court noted that the commission's decision contained no findings (1) about the past practices of the sheriff in allowing a withdrawal of resignation and (2) as to whether the sheriff detrimentally relied on the resignation before Haberer's attempt to withdraw it. The court then stated the issue this way: "If the Sheriff's department were legally required to permit withdrawal depending on its past practices or detrimental reliance, remand would be appropriate for a determination of these facts."
The court concluded that Iowa law does not provide for a right of withdrawal after the resignation has become effective. For this reason, the court concluded, the commission was not required to address the issues of detrimental reliance or the sheriff's past practices and a remand was therefore not necessary. The court denied the appeal and annulled the writ of certiorari. Haberer's appeal to our court followed.
On appeal, Haberer again raises the constructive-discharge and withdrawal-of-resignation issues.
Civil service provisions for deputy sheriffs are found in Iowa Code chapter 341A. Iowa Code section 341A.12 limits the commission's jurisdiction to removals, suspensions, or demotions. The commission determined that Haberer's resignation was not a removal, suspension, or demotion and therefore concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear Haberer's appeal under section 341A.12.
The commission, however, decided it did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Iowa Code section 341A.6(4) and (5). Those provisions, the commission concluded, gave it broad and general powers to hear and determine complaints involving "other matters as may be referred to the commission." See Iowa Code § 341A.6(5).
Contrary to the commission's conclusion, we think the commission had jurisdiction under section 341A.12 to hear Haberer's appeal. Because a constructive discharge alleges the loss of employment attributable to the actions of an employer, we think such a discharge is included in the term "removal" within section 341A.12. Cf. Schulz v. City of Davenport, 444 N.W.2d 479, 481 (Iowa 1989) (); see also Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244-45, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 226, 876 P.2d 1022, 1025 (1994) (en banc) ().
Once Haberer quit his job and he attributed that quit to a resignation coerced by his employer, the commission had jurisdiction under section 341A.12 to hear his appeal as one involving a "removal" from employment. We also think the commission had jurisdiction to hear the withdrawal-of-resignation issue because it was inextricably intertwined with the constructive-discharge issue.
We express no opinion whether the commission had jurisdiction to hear Haberer's appeal under sections 341A.6(4) and(5).
In reviewing Haberer's appeal pursuant to Iowa Code section 341A.12, the district court is "to measure the commission's action by a standard of good faith prompted solely by 'cause.' " Hawkinson v. Louisa County Civil Serv. Comm'n, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
..."aggravated" or amount to a "continuous pattern" before the situation will be deemed intolerable.' " Id. (quoting Haberer v. Woodbury County , 560 N.W.2d 571, 576 (Iowa 1997) ). Constructive discharge is not its own cause of action, but must be asserted under a common law or statutory frame......
-
Rains v. Bend of the River
... ... The parents filed suit in the Circuit Court for Putnam County against the retailer who sold their son ammunition for the handgun shortly ... ...
-
Grim v. Centrum Valley Farms, L. L.P.
...Generally, trivial or isolated acts of the employer are not sufficient to support a constructive discharge claim. Haberer v. Woodbury County, 560 N.W.2d 571, 576 (Iowa 1997). Rather, the "working conditions must be unusually 'aggravated' or amount to a 'continuous pattern' before the situat......
-
Strehlow v. Marshalltown Cmty. Sch. Dist., 4:16–cv–109–RGE–HCA
...constructive discharge and a violation of the Iowa Civil Rights statute prohibiting age discrimination); Haberer v. Woodbury Cty. , 560 N.W.2d 571, 575–76 (Iowa 1997) (claiming constructive discharge in violation of the Iowa Code chapter 341A); First Judicial Dist. Dep't of Corr. Servs. v. ......