Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.

• Decision Date: 30 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. C 11–4047–MWB.,C 11–4047–MWB.
• Citation: 23 F.Supp.3d 991
• Parties: Edward P. HAGEN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, M.D., Tauhni T. Hunt, M.D., and Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

23 F.Supp.3d 991

Edward P. HAGEN, D.O., Plaintiff
v.
SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, M.D., Tauhni T. Hunt, M.D., and Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., Defendants.

No. C 11–4047–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed May 30, 2014.

23 F.Supp.3d 994

Stanley E. Munger, Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Barry G. Vermeer, Gislason & Hunter, LLP, Des Moines, IA, Dustan J. Cross, Mark S. Ullery, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New Ulm, MN, Joseph L. Fitzgibbons, Fitzgibbons Law Office, Estherville, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' POST–TRIAL MOTIONS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 995

A. Factual Background 996

1.	The parties and their relation to each other	996
2.	The facts surrounding Hagen's firing	996

B. Procedural Background 998

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1000

A. Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 1000

1.	Standard for granting judgment as a matter of law	1000
2.	The challenged public policy exceptions	1000

a.	Whether Iowa law recognizes Protected Conduct 3, 4, or 5 as protected activity that can support a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Iowa public policy	1001
b.	Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings that Hagen was fired for engaging in Protected Conduct 3 or 5	1001

i.	Sufficiency of evidence for Protected Conduct 3	1001
ii.	Sufficiency of evidence for Protected Conduct 5	1002

3. Hagen's status as an at-will vs. contractual employee 1004

B. Defendants' Motion for a New Trial 1004

1.	Standard for granting a new trial	1005
2.	The challenged jury instructions	1006

a.	An overriding business justification	1006
b.	Calculating past lost earnings based on when Hagen would have “voluntarily” left Siouxland	1009

3.	Whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence	1011
4.	Defendants' evidentiary objections	1011

C. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for Judgment, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 1012

...