Harbit v. Voss Petroleum, Inc.

Decision Date18 September 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-675,95-675
Citation553 N.W.2d 329
PartiesThomas L. HARBIT, Appellant, v. VOSS PETROLEUM, INC., and Joyce Ann, Inc. d/b/a Mustang Markets, Richard Voss, Joyce Voss, Kathy Ockenfels f/k/a Kathy Voss, Kathy Voss, Inc. and Kath Streb, Appellees.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Dennis A. Bjorklund, Iowa City, for appellant.

Connie Alt and William H. Courter of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee Kath Streb.

Thomas D. Hobart of Meardon, Sueppel, Downer & Hayes, P.L.C., Iowa City, for remaining appellees.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, LARSON, TERNUS, and SCHULTZ, * JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Thomas Harbit alleges he was fired from his job with Mustang Markets, a convenience store, in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment of employees by a store manager. He filed this suit against those he alleged to be the owners or supervisors and managers, alleging violation of his civil rights under Title VII of the civil rights act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994), breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Harbit appeals. We affirm.

Our affirmance is not based on all theories adopted by the district court. We can affirm a trial court judgment on any ground, whether urged or not. Bensley v. State, 468 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Iowa 1991).

I. Summary judgment upon the civil rights claim was appropriate against Harbit's coemployees because the relief sought was unavailable as against them. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1993) (Congress did not intend to impose individual liability on all employees), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 1049, 127 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994). Supervisors are not liable. See Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C.Cir.) (affirming dismissal of Title VII claim against supervisor), --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); Lankford v. City of Hobart, 27 F.3d 477, 480 (10th Cir.1994); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015, 115 S.Ct. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994).

II. Summary judgment on the civil rights claim was correctly granted for the corporate defendants because there is no genuine issue of fact concerning an employment relationship between them and plaintiff. In defending against a motion for summary judgment, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to rely on the bare assertions of a petition. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 237(e); Marks v. Estate of Hartgerink, 528 N.W.2d 539, 544 (Iowa 1995). Voss Petroleum, Inc. and Joyce Ann, Inc. (whom plaintiff alleged were doing business as Mustang Markets) denied the employment relationship in their answer and also, in answers to interrogatories, asserted they were not Harbit's employer. Harbit has not come forward with any evidence that disputes this position.

III. Plaintiff's claim of tortious interference with a contract also fails. He alleges all defendants were either his employers or their agents. We have said that the tort of malicious interference with a contract can only be committed by a third party, not a party to that contract. Grahek v. Voluntary Hosp. Coop., 473 N.W.2d 31, 35 (Iowa 1991); Nesler v. Fisher & Co., 452 N.W.2d 191, 194 (Iowa 1990). In Klooster v. North Iowa State Bank, 404 N.W.2d 564, 570 (Iowa 1987), we noted that some authorities recognize rare exceptions to this rule. We did not adopt any exceptions, only noted they would not be implicated under the facts. We make the same observation here, emphasizing we express no view on the validity of any exceptions to the rule in Grahek and Nesler noted above.

IV. Harbit's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co., 96-2034
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1998
    ...this litigation that Ackerman's breach-of-warranty claim should be dismissed on the basis of preemption. See Harbit v. Voss Petro., Inc., 553 N.W.2d 329, 330 (Iowa 1996) (trial court ruling can be affirmed on any valid ground, whether urged or not).State courts are not deprived of subject m......
  • Stricker v. Cessford Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 7 Septiembre 2001
    ...clear words of the ICRA. Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989). Vivian, 601 N.W.2d at 873. Furthermore, In Harbit v. Voss Petroleum, 553 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1996), for example, we agreed with the logic propounded by a majority of the federal circuits in ruling that there was no ind......
  • Anderson v. Bristol, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 25 Marzo 2013
    ...is considered an extension of the corporation, and thus cannot be liable for intentional inference. See Harbit v. Voss Petroleum, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Iowa 1996) (affirming a summary judgment on a tortious interference with a contract claim because “all defendants were either [the pla......
  • Kohrt v. Midamerican Energy Co., Civil Action No. 3-00-CV-10090 (S.D. Iowa 8/30/2002), Civil Action No. 3-00-CV-10090.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 30 Agosto 2002
    ...A claim of interference with contract can only be committed by a third party, not by a party to the contract. Harbit v. Voss Petroleum, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Iowa 1996) (citing Grahek v. Voluntary Hosp. Coop. Assoc. of Iowa, Inc., 473 N.W.2d 31, 35 (Iowa 1991) and Nesler, 452 N.W.2d at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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