UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case at Harlan High School Sept. 24

by Rox Laird | September 23, 2024

The Iowa Supreme Court will travel to Harlan Tuesday to hear oral arguments in an appeal brought by the head of the State Alcoholic Beverages Division who argues the Division’s fired former comptroller is not protected by a whistleblower provision in state law.

Arguments in Halbur v. Larson will be heard by the justices at 7 p.m. Sept. 24 in the Harlan High School auditorium, 2102 Durant St. The argument is open to the public and a public reception with the Supreme Court justices sponsored by the Shelby County Bar Association will follow the oral arguments. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in this case.]

Stephen Larson, administrator of the Alcoholic Beverages Division, appeals from a Polk County jury verdict in favor of former Division Comptroller Todd Halbur. Halbur sued for wrongful termination after he was fired, claiming his firing was in retaliation for reporting what he saw as financial misconduct by the Division, which he argued was protected by whistleblower protection in Iowa Code section 70A.28(2). That section protects from reprisal a public employee who in good faith discloses information of, among other things, a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, or abuse of funds or authority.

The jury awarded Halbur $1 million for past wages and emotional distress, which was reduced to the statutorily capped amount of $351,000.

Larson argues on appeal the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment. Larson argues Halbur is not shielded by the whistleblower provision because Halbur expressed his concerns about alleged misconduct directly to Larson, not outside the Division, and Larson argues that reporting to one’s supervisor about his supervisor regarding matters within his normal job duties does not constitute a protected disclosure under section 70A.28(2).

In response, Halbur urges the Court to affirm the district court’s judgment, and he cross-appeals claiming the district court erred in dismissing one of his wrongful-discharge claims.

As for Larson’s argument that Halbur expressed his concerns to the wrong person, Halbur quotes the language of the statute that protects an employee who makes a disclosure to “any other public official” and argues that the section plainly states a “public official” is a proper recipient of a disclosure for purposes of protection from retaliation.

In his cross-appeal, Halbur argues the district court erred in dismissing his wrongful discharge claim based on whistleblower protections under common law outside of section 70A.28.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25