UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Court finds for Corteva on claims of discrimination and retaliation by former employee

by Mary Grace Henderson | June 30, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the Iowa Court of Appeals’ decision in part in McClure v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., a case regarding a former Corteva Agriscience (“Corteva”) employee’s termination and the employee’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation against Corteva. The Court reinstated the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County’s grant of summary judgment on all claims in favor of Corteva. Justice May wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court, and Justice McDonald also filed a concurring opinion.

Plaintiff Darrell McClure was employed by Corteva Agriscience, previously Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., for thirty-six years. McClure operated a forklift to transport goods in Corteva’s warehouse in his role as a product technician. He worked overnight for the bulk of his time with Corteva. McClure was also a firefighter and an emergency medical technician for a local hospital.

In 2014, McClure had a heart attack, and in response to a doctor’s note, Corteva changed McClure’s shift to the daytime. During this time, McClure continued to work at night in his other roles once or twice each week. Following a later shift in management at Corteva, McClure was informed he would go back to the night shift. After several exchanges with his manager, during which McClure proffered three notes from his doctor, McClure was permitted to work during the day.

While at Corteva, McClure was deemed to have violated several safety policies, including a situation where a semitruck “trailer pulled away from the loading dock with McClure and the equipment still inside.” Also, sensor data from McClure’s forklift indicated a disproportionate number of “impacts” (hard breaking, rapid acceleration, and collision events) relative to the other warehouse employees in the first half of 2020. Additionally, McClure was involved in a forklift collision and an additional near-collision. During his employment, Corteva issued several written warnings to McClure, with one warning referencing McClure’s “tardiness and unplanned absences.” Ultimately, Corteva terminated McClure, stating it was because of “his ‘continued failure to meet performance and safety expectations.’”

McClure later claimed he had been discriminated against based on his disability and age, as well as that he was retaliated against in a complaint he filed with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, McClure then sued his former employer, claiming hostile-work environment discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and disability discrimination. While the district court granted Corteva’s motion for summary judgment on all issues, the court of appeals reversed the district court on McClure’s claims of disability and age discrimination. The Iowa Supreme Court only examined McClure’s claims of disability and age discrimination.

Employees are safeguarded from disability-status or age discrimination by employers under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. As McClure pointed to indirect evidence for his cause of action and this case was at the summary judgment stage, the Court relied upon its 2023 decision in Feeback v. Swift Pork Co., utilizing a three-step burden-shifting analysis. At the first step, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Under the Court’s 2014 decision in Goodpaster v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination must show “(1) ‘he has a disability,’ (2) ‘he is qualified to perform the essential functions’ of the job, and (3) ‘the circumstances of his termination raise an inference of illegal discrimination.’” The Court concluded McClure had not satisfactorily established a prima facie case of disability discrimination as he did not provide “evidence that his medical condition substantially limited his ability to work” by “‘generally debilitating’ or significantly decreas[ing] his ability to obtain satisfactory employment in a wide range of jobs beyond one particular job.” Additionally, the Court did not find McClure’s argument that he experienced perceived discrimination sufficient as he did not put forth evidence that he was terminated on the basis of “myths, fears, or stereotypes about his medical condition.”

On the issue of age discrimination, the Court utilized the honest belief rule. Relying on Feeback, the Court stated that “the ‘critical inquiry . . . is not whether the employee actually engaged in the conduct for which he was terminated, but whether the employer in good faith believed that the employee was guilty of the conduct justifying discharge.’” The Court found for Corteva on this issue, asserting McClure did not succeed in “challeng[ing] Corteva’s belief that he was a safety risk” and that McClure did not bring forth a question for a jury regarding whether concerns about his alleged dangerous behavior were a cover for discrimination based on his age. Additionally, the Court did not find McClure’s comparator evidence nor his claims of a discriminatory atmosphere at Corteva sufficient.

Justice McDonald’s concurrence briefly focused on the utilization of the burden-shifting framework pulled from the United States Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, arguing the burden-shifting framework “is inconsistent with the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure.” He suggested the Court should reevaluate whether this framework should be used for cases involving employment discrimination at the summary judgment stage in the future, noting Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981(3) covers the bases for a grant of summary judgment and does not have a “special exception or test for employment discrimination cases.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25