Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 28 / 05-1290 Filed May 11, 2007 CHERYL C. WOODS, Appellant, vs. STEVEN YOUNG, DEAN LERNER, ROBERT GALBRAITH, DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND APPEALS, and THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellees. ________________________________________________________________________ On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.

Appeal from dismissal of cause of action for retaliatory discharge from employment. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND

JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

Pamela J. Walker of Sherinian & Walker Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeffrey C. Peterzalek and John R. Lundquist, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

2 CADY, Justice. This appeal was brought after the district court dismissed the appellant's lawsuit for retaliatory discharge. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court

decision without an opinion under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.24(1) and (4). We granted further review. Upon our review, we affirm the district court judgment. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. This lawsuit evolves from two prior lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, Cheryl Woods brought a small claims action against her employer, the State of Iowa, after it refused to reimburse her for expenses incurred in her employment. She recovered a judgment. In the second lawsuit,

Woods sued the State for retaliatory discharge from employment. She alleged the State terminated her from her employment for pursuing the small claims action, in violation of Iowa's Wage Collection Act, Iowa Code chapter 91A (2003), and in violation of public policy derived from the prohibition under Iowa Code section 91A.10(5) against terminating an employee for bringing an action against an employer. The second lawsuit was terminated when the district court granted the State's motion to dismiss. The district court held chapter 91A did not create a private

cause of action for an employee. It also held there was no common law action for wrongful discharge based on public policy derived from chapter 91A, and in particular section 91A.10(5). district court's order and judgment. Woods then filed the present action based on the same underlying facts. However, Woods alleged she was terminated from her employment contrary to the public policy as derived from a criminal statute, Iowa Woods did not appeal the

3 Code section 720.4, prohibiting tampering with a witness. Woods

claimed she was terminated due to the testimony and evidence she presented during the hearing in the small claims action. The district court dismissed the action, and Woods filed this appeal. She claims the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a

second wrongful termination action after dismissal of the first wrongful termination action because the first dismissal was not based on the merits of her prior claim. Instead, she claims the lawsuit was dismissed because claims concerning discharge from employment under chapter 91A are required to be brought in district court by the labor commissioner, not by private parties. See Iowa Code

Download CHERYL C. WOODS vs. STEVEN YOUNG, DEAN LERNER, ROBERT GALBRAITH, DEPARTMENT OF I

Iowa Law