 |
To recap:
A decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa shows how far some former employees will reach to stretch their termination into some legal claim against their employer. More important, though, it underscores the importance training and supervisor/manager competence can play in protecting employers from spurious legal claims.
Joshua Hoffman began working for Americold Logistics, LLC, in Cedar Rapids as a forklift operator on June 18, 2012. Before working for Americold, he worked as a forklift operator for other companies. Americold provides temperature-controlled warehousing and logistics to the food industry domestically in the United States and internationally.
Americold’s Cedar Rapids facility is attached to a food production plant operated by H.J. Heinz Co. At the facility, Americold stores and ships refrigerated products, including boxes of bulk soup, which come into the facility by way of a conveyor from Heinz.
After an accident and four counseling notices, Hoffman was terminated from his position at Americold.
You know your managers could do a better job if they were trained—and now BLR® offers you an easy and affordable way to get that done—with our TrainingToday® 24/7 online Leadership Library. Get more information.
Lawsuit and why the employer prevailed
Iowa is considered an “at-will” state, where an employee can be fired at any time for any legal reason. Of course, the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized and expanded an exception to that rule—a former employee will have a claim for a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy if the termination violated some generally recognized public policy of the state.
Notably, the first case recognizing this exception in Iowa over 25 years ago involved an employee terminated for pursuing workers’ comp benefits. Since then, the court has recognized a claim for discharge in violation of public policy if the former employee can show:
- A clearly defined Iowa public policy protects his activity;
- The policy would be jeopardized by his discharge;
- He engaged in activity protected by the policy and that conduct was the reason for the discharge; and
- There was no overriding business justification for the termination.
Americold convinced the district court that it was entitled to summary judgment (pretrial dismissal) because Hoffman couldn’t establish the third element—that the “determinative factor” in the company’s termination decision was his filing of a workers’ comp claim.
In this case, the court concluded that based on the evidence in the record, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Hoffman’s filing of a workers’ comp claim was the “determinative factor” in Americold’s decision to fire him. While he disputed whether he actually pulled the battery cables out and, later, whether he committed the third and fourth violations of the policy, he presented little to no evidence that he was terminated for filing a workers’ comp claim.
Instead, the employer showed that once Hoffman’s supervisor was notified of his injury, he attempted to treat it. When the treatment didn’t resolve the injury, the supervisor took him to a local hospital. Further, Hoffman admitted that he applied for the benefits, received them, wasn’t discouraged from applying for them, and never heard anyone complain about his receiving them.
Worried about ever getting your managers and supervisors trained to be effective leaders? It isn’t easy to fit it in—schedulewise or budgetwise—but now there’s BLR’s Leadership Library for Managers and Supervisors. Train all your people, at their convenience, 24/7, for one standard fee. Get more information.
Bottom line
While some might call this outcome a result of the employer’s luck, good employers know that only hard work, good training, and experienced managers provide for this result. Managers who conduct proper, thorough investigations act on justifiable facts rather than indefensible pretext.
Managers who know the law (such as employers’ workers’ comp obligations) know not to skirt it or discourage employees from seeking benefits. And managers who know and fairly apply company policy are less likely to raise red flags for a court or other fact finder when someone cries foul.
Erik S. Fisk is a partner at Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C. and an editor of Iowa Employment Law Letter. He can be reached at fisk@whitfieldlaw.com.