Northrup v. Farmland Industries, Inc.

• Citation: 372 N.W.2d 193
• Decision Date: 31 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-906,84-906
• Parties: 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1756, 104 Lab.Cas. P 55,582, 7 IER Cases 1778 Steve NORTHRUP, Appellant, v. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Page 193

372 N.W.2d 193

55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1756, 104 Lab.Cas. P 55,582,

7 IER Cases 1778

Steve NORTHRUP, Appellant, v. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 84-906.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 31, 1985.

J.R. Norris of J.R. Norris & Associates, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

John R. Carpenter and Iris E. Muchmore of Simmons, Perrine, Albright & Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Considered en banc.

LARSON, Justice.

The plaintiff, Steve Northrup, was fired by Farmland Industries, Inc., and this suit followed, alleging wrongful discharge and tortious infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment was entered for the employer, and Northrup appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were disputed facts surrounding the discharge.

The employer responded that summary judgment was proper, even if disputed facts existed. It claimed our civil rights statute, Iowa Code chapter 601A, provides the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge based on alcoholism. As to plaintiff's claim for infliction of emotional distress, the required "outrageous conduct" was lacking as a matter of law, according to its argument. We agree with the employer on both issues and therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R.Civ.P. 237(c). The burden of showing the nonexistence of a material fact is upon the moving party. Knapp v. Simmons, 345 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1984); Colonial Baking Co. v. Dowie, 330 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa 1983). Every legitimate inference that reasonably can be deduced from the evidence should be afforded the resisting party, and a fact question is generated if reasonable minds can differ on how the issue should be resolved. Henkel v. R & S Bottling Co., 323 N.W.2d 185, 187-88 (Iowa 1982). With these principles in mind, we look to the record before the court in the summary judgment action.

Northrup was employed at Farmland Industries from September 27, 1977, through July 26, 1982. At the time of his termination, he was plant superintendent, responsible for operations, safety, production scheduling, and quality control.

On March 22, 1982, Northrup's wife left him. He called Ed Haney, his supervisor, and requested the rest of the week off. Haney agreed. Northrup later requested the following week off as well, and this request was also granted. At some time, either during this second week or shortly thereafter, Northrup spoke with a doctor who recommended that he submit to alcohol rehabilitation treatment. Northrup called Haney to inform him that he needed alcohol treatment and would be gone for a month. The record indicates this was the first indication Farmland had that Northrup had a drinking problem. Sick leave with pay was granted.

At the end of April, 1982, Northrup left the treatment center a few days prior to "graduation," because he was worried about his continued employment at Farmland. On his return, he had a meeting with Haney, who expressed dissatisfaction with his job performance. He warned Northrup that any further mistakes could cost him his job. Northrup also testified that Haney yelled at him, telling him he was not going to tolerate much more, and accused him of misconduct. Northrup felt that Haney was "mad at him" for his leave of absence.

On July 26, 1982, Northrup's employment with Farmland was terminated. Northrup contends this termination was the result of his alcoholism and his participation in the alcohol treatment program. Farmland, on the other hand, maintains Northrup was terminated for poor job performance.

Northrup filed complaints with the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, claiming that he had been harassed on the job and that his termination was a direct result of his alcohol disability. On January 20, 1983, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued an "Administrative Release and/or Right-to-Sue Letter" pursuant to Iowa Code section 601A.16 (1983). The notice advised plaintiff, pursuant to statute, he had "a right to commence an action in the State District Court within ninety (90) days of the issue date of this Administrative release/letter of right-to-sue, or within one year after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first." Plaintiff filed this petition against Farmland ninety-one days later. (He concedes his petition is not timely under the civil rights act, Iowa Code ch. 601A.)

I. The Wrongful Discharge Claim.

The general rule is that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time, for any reason. See Abrisz v. Pulley Freight Lines, Inc., 270 N.W.2d 454, 455 (Iowa 1978); Harper v. Cedar Rapids Television Co., 244 N.W.2d 782, 791 (Iowa 1976); Allen v. Highway Equipment Co., 239 N.W.2d 135, 139 (Iowa 1976).

Northrup concedes that he is an employee at will and that he would be precluded from recovery for wrongful discharge under the general rule. However, he argues that a discharge for alcoholism is against public policy and that, when an employee's discharge violates public policy, the general rule of no liability is subject to an exception.

This court has never expressly recognized a public-policy exception, although we recently noted its increasing acceptance in other jurisdictions. See Abrisz, 270 N.W.2d at 455. See also Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 685 P.2d 1081, 1088 n. 1 (1984) (listing jurisdictions recognizing this exception); Note, Protecting At Will Employees Against Wrongful Discharge: The Duty to Terminate Only in Good Faith, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1816, 1822-24 (1980).

While we hinted in Abrisz that, under proper circumstances, we would recognize a common-law claim for a discharge violating public policy, we did not apply it there because the facts did not establish such a violation. We observed, moreover, that "[c]ourts should not declare conduct violative of public policy unless it is clearly so." Abrisz, 270 N.W.2d at 456. It has been observed, in fact, that successful common-law claims for wrongful discharge have been based in large part on violations of independent statutory policy, not those established by court decisions. See Note, Protecting At-Will Employees, supra, 93 Harv.L.Rev. at 1822-23.

Looking to our own statutes, we find an express policy prohibiting discharges for "disabilities." Iowa Code section 601A.6 (1983) provides in part:

1. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any:

a. Person to refuse to hire, accept, register, classify, or refer for employment, to discharge any employee, or to otherwise discriminate in employment against any applicant for employment or any employee because of the age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion or disability of such applicant or employee, unless based upon the nature of the occupation.

Section 601A.2(11) provides this definition of disability:

"Disability" means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial handicap. In reference to employment, under this chapter, "disability" also means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial handicap, but is unrelated to such person's ability to engage in a particular occupation.

In our recent case of Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission, 366 N.W.2d 522, 527 (Iowa 1985), we held that alcoholism can be a "disability" under language virtually identical to section 601A.2(11). It is thus clear that a person discharged solely because of alcoholism may pursue a remedy under chapter 601A. The question remains, however, whether the remedy under chapter 601A is exclusive, as Farmland argues, or merely an alternative remedy, as argued by Northrup.

Iowa Code section 601A.16(1) provides:

A person claiming to be aggrieved by an unfair or discriminatory practice must initially seek an administrative relief by filing a complaint with the commission in accordance with section 601A.15. A complainant after the proper filing of a complaint with the commission, may subsequently commence an action for relief in the district court if all of the following conditions have been satisfied:

a. The complainant has timely filed the complaint with the commission as provided in section 601A.15, subsection 12; and

b. The complaint has been on file with the commission for at least one hundred twenty days and the commission has issued a release to the complainant pursuant to subsection 2 of this section.

(Emphasis added.)

Section 601A.16(3) provides that:

An action authorized under this section is barred unless commenced within ninety days after issuance by the commission of a release under subsection 2 of this section or within one year after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. If a complainant obtains a release from the commission under subsection 2 of this section, the commission shall be barred from further action on that complaint.

It is clear from a reading of section 601A.16(1) that the procedure under the civil rights act is exclusive, and a claimant asserting a discriminatory practice must pursue the remedy provided by the act. Only after a release has been given by the commission may a complainant commence suit; then suit must be commenced within ninety days of the release or within one year after filing the complaint, whichever occurs first. Iowa Code § 601A.16(3) (1983) (This section now appears without the alternative one-year limitation period. See Iowa Code § 601A.16(3) (1985)). This suit was not filed within either the ninety-day or one-year limitation. In fact, Northrup has abandoned his chapter 601A claims in favor of a totally independent, common-law action.

We believe that any remedies to which Northrup may be entitled would lie solely under chapter 601A and his independent common-law action cannot be recognized. The district court was correct in so ruling.

II. The...