Todd P. Halbur v. Stephen Larson, et al.

Des Moines, Iowa employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants for wrongful discharge.

Todd Halbur was fired from his position as comptroller of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division (ABD). Halbur believed he was fired in retaliation for (1) disclosing to his supervisor, Administrator Stephen Larson, the head of ABD, that ABD was operating in violation of Iowa law and (2) for refusing to engage in illegal acts. Halbur filed this suit against Larson, among others, and asserted a statutory claim for wrongful discharge and a common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The district court submitted the statutory claim to a jury but dismissed the wrongful discharge claim on the ground that the statutory claim was the exclusive remedy allowed under the circumstances. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Halbur and awarded him $1 million in damages, which was reduced pursuant to a statutory cap on damages. In this appeal and cross-appeal, Larson contends Halbur's statutory claim fails as a matter of law, and Halbur contends the district court erred in dismissing his common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.



* * *

Halbur's alleged refusal to engage in an illegal act is inextricably intertwined with his statutory whistleblower claim, and the statutory remedy is thus exclusive. Halbur's refusal to authorize additional payments was premised on his belief that additional payments were "a violation of the law" under section 70A.28. This is the same belief he had communicated to Larson. This case is thus distinguishable from Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., because the plaintiff in Jasper did not have a statutory remedy encompassing her claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. 764 N.W.2d at 75960. Similarly, the plaintiff in Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical, Inc. brought a lawsuit for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy also where no statute provided a civil remedy. 613 N.W.2d at 279. In contrast to Jasper and Fitzgerald, there is a statutory remedy here that covers the same conduct, or sufficiently intertwined conduct, asserted in Halbur's common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. See Iowa Code § 70A.28(5). This is not a

merely theoretical point. Halbur in fact presented this theory to the jury in support of his statutory claim. At trial, Halbur presented evidence that his employment was terminated for refusing to authorize any additional payments to BMI. He repeatedly argued to the jury at closing that he was fired, in part, for refusing to "sign off on any more invoices." Halbur is not entitled to a second trial to get additional damages for a statutory claim on which he already prevailed and was awarded damages.



* * *



Key Phrases Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Iowa Code section 70A.28. Whistleblower protection. Employment termination. Error preservation.

Affirmed