JAMES E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. IOWA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and K & R EXPRESS, Respondents-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-259 / 06-0429
Filed May 23, 2007
JAMES E. JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL
BOARD and K & R EXPRESS,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Kellyann M. Lekar,
Judge.
James E. Johnson appeals a district court ruling affirming the Iowa
Employment Appeal Board’s denial of unemployment insurance benefits.
AFFIRMED.
Larry F. Woods, Oelwein, for appellant.
Anita Garrison, Des Moines, for appellee Iowa Employment Appeal Board.
K & R Express, Waterloo, pro se.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
James E. Johnson appeals a district court ruling affirming the Iowa
Employment Appeal Board’s (Board) denial of unemployment insurance benefits.
We affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Johnson began employment at K & R Express as a truck driver on July 15,
2003. One month later, he quit over concerns about his wages, taxes, work
hours, and trailer-tire blowouts. He filed a claim for unemployment on August 17,
2003, but was rehired by K & R two days later. Johnson continued to work for
K & R for approximately one month until, on September 26, 2003, he quit after a
verbal disagreement with K & R’s president.
On or about October 9, 2003,
Johnson filed another claim for unemployment compensation. K & R promptly
protested the claim, arguing Johnson quit voluntarily.
On October 14, 2003, 1 Iowa Workforce Development sent Johnson a
letter stating, in pertinent part, the following:
Original Claim Date
File Number
08/17/03 REF=04
50
475 A 0
....
Decision:
You are eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits as
long as you meet all the other eligibility requirements. K & R
Express will not be charged for benefits paid.
Explanation of Decision:
Our records indicate the claimant earned ten (10) times their
weekly unemployment benefit amount in insured work after the
disqualifying separation from this employer.
1
This letter lists a decision date of October 8, 2003, and a notification date of
October 14, 2003.
3
K & R’s protest led to a telephone fact-finding interview. On November 4, 2003,
an Iowa Workforce Development representative sent Johnson a letter stating, in
pertinent part:
Original Claim Date
File Number
8/17/03 REF=05
40
281 D 0
....
Decision:
You are not eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
The employer’s account will not be charged.
Explanation of Decision:
Our records indicate you voluntarily quit work on 10/03/03,[ 2 ] by
refusing to continue working. Your quitting was not caused by your
employer.
Johnson appealed the representative’s determination. A telephone hearing was
held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on December 10, 2003. Johnson
did not mention the October 14 letter during the hearing.
Instead, Johnson
described the circumstances surrounding the second time he quit his job at
K & R. Johnson explained how he was scheduled to pick up a trailer full of meat
at the terminal yard in Waterloo. He arrived at the yard, but could not find the
assigned trailer. He did not have the phone number for the dispatcher, so he
called the president of K & R, Rich Brennan, at approximately 10:30 p.m. in the
evening to tell him the trailer was not there. Brennan told Johnson in an “irate”
and “kind of rude” manner that the truck was at the yard. Johnson went back to
the yard but neither he nor his wife could find the trailer. Johnson then left a
message on K & R’s answering machine indicating that he quit.
2
Johnson initially claimed he quit on October 3, not September 26.
4
The ALJ asked Johnson if there were any other problems that caused him
to quit. Johnson went on to complain of bald trailer tires, problems with the
refrigeration units on some of the trailers, and instances where he felt pressured
to falsify his driving log so that he would comply with Iowa Department of
Transportation regulations. He also indicated he was upset that K & R was not
withholding enough federal taxes from his paycheck.
The ALJ upheld the representative’s decision finding Johnson voluntarily
quit his employment for no good cause attributable to the employer, noting
[i]t was his testimony that he quit in mid-August for the same
reasons that he quit on September 26. The administrative law
judge is not inclined to conclude that he had good cause for quitting
in September when he returned to the employment in spite of the
problems he alleged occurred during the initial period of
employment.
Johnson appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board.
The Board affirmed the
decision, finding it to be correct and adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law as its own. The ensuing application for rehearing was denied.
Johnson then hired his present counsel and filed a petition for judicial
review of the Board’s denial of benefits. In his petition Johnson claimed, for the
first time, that the employer did not have standing to appeal the October 14
decision granting benefits. He also argued the above-quoted language in the
ALJ decision violated the doctrine of issue preclusion as it essentially
redetermined the issue of good cause in the initial decision. Over the Board’s
objection, the district court admitted additional evidence pertaining to the
October 14 letter.
After reviewing the record and the additional evidence
proffered by Johnson, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision.
5
Johnson now appeals the district court’s decision, claiming:
I.
The doctrine of res judicata is controlling on the plaintiff’s
unemployment compensation claim.
II.
Iowa Code section 96.6(4) makes the October 8, 2003
decision binding upon the parties to these proceedings regarding
unemployment compensation.
III.
There was not any appeal by either the Iowa Department of
Employment Board or K & R Express from the October 8 (October
14), 2003 decision. Thus, the October 8 (October 14) decision is
binding on the employer, employee and the Employment Appeal
Board.
The Board responds by contending Johnson failed to preserve error on
these claims because he did not raise the doctrine of res judicata or issue
preclusion before either the ALJ or the Board.
II. Merits
A party is precluded from raising issues in the district court that were not
raised and litigated before the agency.
Interstate Power Co. v. Iowa State
Commerce Comm’n, 463 N.W.2d 699, 701 (Iowa 1990); Chauffeurs, Teamsters
& Helpers, Local Union 238 v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 394 N.W.2d 375, 384
(Iowa 1986). The rule stems from the doctrine of error preservation. To preserve
error for appeal, a party must raise the issue before the agency. Chauffeurs, 394
N.W.2d at 384.
The record clearly indicates Johnson did not raise these three arguments
prior to his appeal to the district court. Throughout his correspondence with the
Board, he never mentioned a prior Iowa Workforce decision granting him benefits
for his prior quit. During the hearing before the ALJ he indicated he had quit
K & R once before, but he did not inform the ALJ that the quit resulted in
6
unemployment benefits. Consequently, we find all three arguments were not
preserved for our review.
There are two reasons for the aforementioned rule of error preservation.
“First, fairness requires that an issue be raised while one’s opponent still has an
opportunity to respond to the issue.
Second, the agency should have an
opportunity to consider and rule on the issue.” Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep’t of
Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 691 (Iowa 1994) (internal citations omitted). K & R
never had the opportunity to respond to these issues. Similarly, the agency did
not have an opportunity to consider or rule on these issues. We will not do so
now on appellate review.
Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supports the
Board’s denial of benefits. Therefore, we affirm the decision of 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.
