Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., No. 7-052/05-1994 (Iowa App. 5/9/2007)
| Decision Date | 09 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 7-052/05-1994,7-052/05-1994 |
| Parties | KIMBERLY S. JASPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. NIZAM, INC., d/b/a KID UNIVERSITY and MOHSIN HUSSAIN, Individually and in his Corporate Capacity, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Donna L. Paulsen, Judge.
Kimberly S. Jasper appeals the trial court's grant of the defendants' motion for directed verdict and entry of judgment in favor of the defendants in wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Andrew Legrant and Mark D. Sherinian, of Sherinian & Walker, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Gordon R. Fischer, of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Baker, JJ.
We filed our opinion in this case on March 28, 2007, but subsequently granted defendant Mohsin Hussain's petition for rehearing. Our March 28, 2007, decision is therefore vacated, and this opinion replaces it. Kim Jasper appeals the trial court's grant of the defendants' motion for directed verdict and entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. A conditional new trial is awarded and the case remanded to the district court. Jasper may avoid a new trial by agreeing to reduce the award for emotional distress from $100,000 to $20,000. If a new trial is held, the jury should be instructed on punitive damages, and evidence that the defendant had operated another daycare center that was cited for violating children/teacher ratio regulations should be admitted.
Kim Jasper was employed as the director of Kid University, a children's daycare center located in Johnston, Iowa, from August 10 through December 1, 2003. Her duties as director included the supervision of staff, ensuring the safety of the children, maintaining good relationships with parents, and ensuring the center was in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. H. Nizam is the corporate entity that operated Kid University. Mohsin Hussain is the President, and his wife, Zakia Hussain, is the Vice President of the corporation.
Prior to Jasper's employment, the center had been investigated by the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in response to a parent complaint concerning the children/teacher ratio. The investigation uncovered a number of deficiencies at the center. As a result of the investigation, DHS checked on the center regularly, including frequent announced and unannounced visits.
Jasper and the Hussains had regular conversations about the children/teacher ratio and staff expenses. Initially, Mohsin Hussain told Jasper to do what she needed to do to comply with the State's staffing ratio requirements. Within a few weeks of her hire, however, Mohsin Hussain told Jasper they could not afford to run the center with payroll expenses so high. During November 2003, Jasper and Krysti Christensen, the center's Assistant Director, met with the Hussains on three occasions to discuss staffing and expenses.
At trial, Jasper testified that she explained to them that she could not cut staff hours any more without violating the state regulations, and she was not willing to do that. Mohsin Hussain testified that he never told Jasper to cut staff, and her termination had nothing to do with the children/teacher ratios.
Jasper was involuntarily terminated from Kid University on December 1, 2003. At the time of her termination, she was given a letter, signed by Mohsin and Zakia Hussain, that listed a number of reasons for her termination, including insubordination, failure to notify the Hussains when she would leave the building, failure to organize and staff a booth at the Johnston Farmers Market, "a different agenda," failure to keep the Hussains informed of events at the center, problems with organizing and maintaining children/teacher ratios, improper use of the telephone, and "[t]oo many staff hours considering the enrollment." Jasper was given the termination letter by Dan Scholtes, who had been hired by Hussain to replace Jasper.1 After Jasper's termination, a parent meeting was held to discuss the change in the director position and other parent concerns. When questioned about Jasper's termination, Hussain insinuated that some money had been missing.
After the termination, Jasper did not obtain full-time employment until April 2004. Her family had been living in a house owned by the Hussains, which they were required to vacate by February 1, 2004.2 During this time, Jasper suffered frequent crying spells and had difficulty sleeping. At one point, she was taken to the hospital due to an anxiety attack and was prescribed anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication. She was socially withdrawn, distraught, and short with her children. Jasper gained considerable weight during this time.
On December 9, 2003, Jasper filed a petition against the defendants for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, alleging that she was terminated for refusing to understaff the center. In January 2004, the defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, which was denied. In July 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. The matter proceeded to jury trial on September 12, 2005. Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the defendants moved for directed verdict. The trial judge reserved ruling on the motion and submitted the case to the jury.
On September 16, 2005, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jasper, awarding her $26,915 for lost past earnings, $100,000 for past pain and suffering, and $39,507.25 for expenses and additional services.
On October 28, 2005, the defendants filed a post-trial motion denominated a "motion for directed verdict." On December 2, 2005, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion for directed verdict and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The trial judge held that Jasper failed to show the existence of a clearly recognized and well-defined public policy supporting her cause of action and failed to meet her burden with regard to causation. Jasper appeals.
At the outset, the court notes that this appeal is from the grant of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants. Although denominated a "directed verdict," the court finds that review should be on the basis of a judgment notwithstanding verdict as a verdict had been returned. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1003(2) (). We review the trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict for correction of errors at law. Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 3434-4 (Iowa 2006) (citing Bellville v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 702 N.W.2d 468, 473 (Iowa 2005)). We also review the trial court's court ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict for correction of errors at law. Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388, 391 (Iowa 2001). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Iowa R. App. P 6.14(6)(b). We take into consideration "every legitimate inference that may fairly and reasonably be made." Midwest Home Distrib., Inc. v. Domco Indus. Ltd., 585 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Iowa 1998) (citations omitted). "[T]he court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2110, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105, 122 (2000) (citations omitted). It is not the court's task to determine how we would have ruled on the evidence presented. Tudor v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 506 S.E.2d 554, 565 (W.Va. 1997). Our "task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below." Id.
Discharge of an at-will employee is unlawful when it violates public policy. Lloyd v. Drake Univ., 686 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Iowa 2004). To succeed on a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a plaintiff must prove:
(1) The existence of a clearly defined public policy that protects an activity.
(2) This policy would be undermined by a discharge from employment.
(3) The challenged discharge was the result of participating in the protected activity.
(4) There was lack of other justification for the termination.
Id. (citing Davis v. Horton, 661 N.W.2d 533, 535 (Iowa 2003)).
The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that "[s]ome courts are beginning to articulate" elements one through four as (1) the clarity element, (2) the jeopardy element, (3) the causation element, and (4) the absence of justification element. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275, 282, fn. 2 (Iowa 2000) (citing Gardner v. Loomis Armoured, Inc., 913 P.2d 377, 382 (Wash. 1996); Collins v. Rizkana, 652 N.E.2d 653, 657 (Ohio 1995)).
To determine whether a clearly defined public policy exists, the Iowa Supreme Court has "generally looked only to our statutes and state constitution." Lloyd, 686 N.W.2d at 229 (citation omitted). The court has also recognized that
other states have looked to other sources, such as judicial decisions and administrative rules. Regardless of the source, however, "we proceed cautiously and will only extend such recognition to those policies that are well recognized and clearly defined." Only such policies are weighty enough "to overcome the employer's interest in operating its business in the manner it sees fit," which we have long and vigorously protected.
Id. (citations omitted).
"Over the years, [the Iowa Supreme Court] ha[s] recognized a number of clearly defined public policies." Id. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial