BEVERLY JEAN CORKERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FARMERS COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE CO., Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-666 / 05-1151
Filed October 25, 2006
BEVERLY JEAN CORKERY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
FARMERS COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Denver D. Dillard,
Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a district court decision denying her claim for
wrongful termination of her employment. AFFIRMED.
John J. Wood and John R. Walker, Jr. of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris,
Hoffman & Johnson, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Charles E. Miller and Diane M. Reinsch of Lane & Waterman, L.L.P.,
Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Plaintiff Beverly Corkery, a former employee of defendant Farmers CoOperative Telephone Company, appeals from a district court decision that denied
her claim for the alleged wrongful termination of her employment.
Corkery
asserts the court erred when it determined she had not established that her
employment had been terminated in violation of public policy, for exercising her
right to pursue workers compensation benefits. Specifically, Corkery contends
the court’s factual findings are flawed, and the evidence demonstrates she was
terminated in retaliation for filing a complaint with the defendant’s Board of
Directors about the manner in which her supervisor, Richard Baker, had handled
her worker’s compensation claim. 1
We review the district court’s decision for the correction of errors at law.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Business Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Wicks, 703 N.W.2d 427,
429 (Iowa 2005).
We are bound by the court’s fact findings, provided they are
supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(a). Evidence is
substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same
findings. Wicks, 703 N.W.2d at 429.
Because Corkery was an at-will employee, the defendant could terminate
her employment at any time for any lawful reason.
Fitzgerald v. Salsbury
Chemical, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275, 281 (Iowa 2000). Her employment could not,
however, be terminated in violation public policy. Id. It is well established that
termination in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits violates
1
Corkery’s petition additionally alleged that her termination violated contractual
protections under the defendant’s personnel policy manual. This claim was also rejected
by the district court, and is not at issue on appeal.
3
public policy. Weinzetl v. Ruan Single Source Transp. Co., 587 N.W.2d 809, 811
(Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
However, in order to recover on such a wrongful
termination claim, Corkery must establish that her decision to pursue workers’
compensation benefits was “a determining factor” in the defendant’s termination
decision, in that it tipped the scale decisively in favor of termination. See id.
Mere proof of protected conduct followed by termination is insufficient. Id.
Application of the foregoing principles leads us to uphold the district
court’s detailed, well-reasoned decision. Here, the district court determined that
Corkery’s termination was simply the board’s acceptance of the following offer
she made in a written request for mediation: “[I]f mediation is not possible, it
leaves me no alternative but to ask the board to terminate me with a severance
package.” The court found the board had retained a mediator to explore the
possibility of mediation, determined mediation was not a viable option, and
accordingly terminated Corkery with a severance package, as she had
requested. In addition, the court determined the Board’s decision to terminate
Corkery’s employment was the result of a preexisting, documented personality
conflict between Corkery and her fellow employees, and not her decision to
pursue workers’ compensation benefits.
A review of the record demonstrates these findings are supported by
substantial evidence.
While we find it generally unnecessary to outline the
evidence that supports the district court’s decision in this case, we will address
Corkery’s contention the court made an erroneous fact finding when it stated,
“There is no evidence to show that any complaint was ever made to the Board
about the claim for worker’s compensation.”
4
Corkery interprets the foregoing as a finding that she never made a
complaint to the board alleging, among other things, Baker’s unlawful and illegal
handling of her workers’ compensation claim. Corkery’s claim might have some
merit, provided the disputed statement were read in isolation.
However, the
statement must be read in the context of the entire district court decision.
Notably, the court’s decision makes express references to the complaint
Corkery filed with the board, which did protest Baker’s handling of “Workman’s
Compensation Problems,” including his failure to compensate her for, and
denying her a raise based on, time she missed from work related to her workers’
compensation injury. In addition, the disputed statement follows a discussion of
Baker’s actions, including determinations by the court that Baker’s mishandling of
Corkery’s workers’ compensation claim was a “mistake,” and that in
communications with the defendant’s attorney Baker stated only that he believed
Corkery could not be terminated until her workers’ compensation claim had been
resolved.
Under the circumstances the disputed statement is, at best, ambiguous.
While it could arguably refer to Corkery’s complaint to the board, it could as
easily refer to a determination that Baker had never complained to the board
about the fact that Corkery had filed a workers’ compensation claim.
If the
district court’s findings are ambiguous, we will construe them to uphold, rather
than defeat, its judgment. Johnson v. Kaster, 637 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 2001).
The record contains substantial evidence in support of the district court’s
decision to deny Corkery’s claim. We accordingly affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
