UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Unanimous Supreme Court stresses specificity in wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claims and proper pathways for whistleblower claims

by Mary Grace Henderson | June 16, 2025

In Brodie, et al. v. Foxhoven, et al., the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the Iowa District Court for Mills County’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant Glenwood Resource Center (GRC) in a lawsuit filed by former employees claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Court held the plaintiffs failed to point to a “clearly defined public policy” the plaintiffs had championed during their employment, causing their termination. Additionally, the Court held the plaintiffs could only bring their whistleblower claims under Iowa Code section 70A.28, an avenue previously closed through summary judgment at the district court level but which was not appealed.

Before GRC closed in June 2024, it “was a residence for persons with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities.” In 2017, facility staff members started performing nonconsensual research on residents, including research that staff felt was objectionable and unethical. Additionally, GRC started putting residents in physical restraints more often. During this time, the frequency of resident deaths grew.

The plaintiffs included a former assistant superintendent, three physicians, a treatment program manager, and a director of quality management, who all worked for GRC. In 2018, in the period during which GRC conducted alleged nonconsensual research on residents, they claimed they were fired or were constructively discharged. While not all of the plaintiffs were aware of this research, all made complaints about GRC’s practices prior to their departure.

Originally, the plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court under both federal and state law. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the federal law claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, conspiracy for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and violation of the Iowa Code section 70A.28 whistleblower statute in Mills County District Court. Additionally, two of the physicians sued for tortious interference with the physician-patient relationship. The claims were filed against GRC, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), a former director of DHS, a former director of the DHS division of mental health and disability services, the former superintendent of the GRC, and the former medical director for the GRC. While the district court found for the defendants on all claims on summary judgment, the only claim appealed was the claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Mansfield outlined that, to succeed on a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the plaintiffs had to establish the following elements, as articulated in the Court’s 2024 opinion in Koester v. Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services: (1) there is a “clearly defined and well-recognized public policy” safeguarding the plaintiff’s behavior; (2) “this public policy would be undermined by the [plaintiff’s] discharge” from their job; (3) the plaintiff’s behavior was protected, “and this conduct was the reason the employer discharged the” plaintiff; and (4) the discharge lacked a “business justification.”

The Court first asserted the plaintiffs had not put forth a public policy which was “clearly defined.” The plaintiffs’ reliance on Iowa Code sections 225C.1(2) and 230A.101(1) were not found persuasive; while acknowledging the incidents at GRC were “cruel to the residents and wrong,” the Court indicated these statutes lacked sufficient particularity to show a clearly defined public policy. Instead, the plaintiffs needed to point to a “constitutional provision, statute, or regulation” that precisely distinguishes what is legal from what is illegal.

Amicus Voice of Reason, Inc. requested that Iowa Admin. Code r. 411—30.5(5)(b), which focuses on informed consent in state resource facilities, be utilized as support for the plaintiffs. The Court declined to do so, asserting it would be improper to bring this regulation into the case on appeal when not relied upon at the district court level, especially as an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action is proffering “a clearly defined and well-recognized public policy.” Recognizing the plaintiffs had previous opportunities to shift their statutory support, Justice Mansfield noted the case “could have easily taken a different turn if the plaintiffs had alleged a different, more specific public policy.”

Further, the Court found the plaintiffs’ claim that “they were discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing” should have solely been brought under Iowa Code section 70A.28 rather than as the common law tort of wrongful discharge. In support of this position, the Court first emphasized the greater breadth of the statute’s employee protections and remedies, relative to the common law tort of wrongful discharge.

The Court also pointed to the wide array of state government figures to whom whistleblowing is covered under section 70A.28. Among these figures is the DHS director to whom four plaintiffs allegedly expressed whistleblowing concerns.

The Court also examined the historical context of section 70A.28, acknowledging Iowa did not have a tort for common law wrongful-discharge at the time section 70A.28 took effect. As such, the Court asserted the absence of a statement within section 70A.28 that an employee can only bring a whistleblowing claim of this nature under the statute is because there was not a need for such a provision when the statute took effect.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25