A former Lee County employee has once again asked the Iowa Supreme Court to examine his wrongful termination lawsuit.
Rick Carter's request comes after the Iowa Court of Appeals sided with Lee County in a 2-1 vote several weeks ago.
Carter has maintained that he was fired from his job as Maintenance Director in 2011 for being a whistleblower. He has said he qualifies for that status because he spoke out about mismanagement by the Lee County Board of Supervisors, in particular when it comes to the expansion of the Lee County Jail.
The lawsuit went to trial in February 2013. At that time, a jury sided with Carter and awarding him $186,000 in damages.
He never saw the money, though, because the verdict was set aside by District Court Judge Mary Ann Brown. She said Carter did not prove his claims and that the evidence did not warrant the case even going to the jury.
Carter responded to the decision by asking the Iowa Supreme Court to review the case. The justices declined, instead sending the case to the Iowa Appeals Court.
In its 2-1 ruling, the majority found that no reasonable jury could find that Carter earned whistleblower protection by venting his complaints during public meetings.
Carter's latest appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court poses eight questions for further review. They focus on the interpretation of the whistleblower statutes and the jury instructions from Carter's original trial.
These are the questions posed in Carter's appeal:
He asks whether the Court of Appeals erred in...
- affirming the district court's finding that the defendant was entitled to a judgment not withstanding the verdict.
- finding that the appellant did not disclose any information to the Board of Supervisors or Sheriff which was not already known to them.
- finding that the appellant was not entitled to protection afforded to him under the whistleblower statute.
- finding that no reasonable person could find that the appellant reasonably believed that what he reported was a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, a gross abuse of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health.
- allowing the District Court to use a different term of what the appellant was required to prove than was used in the jury instructions.
- finding that the appellant was required to prove that something was disclosed to Board of Supervisors or Sheriff as opposed to reported to the Board of Supervisors or Sheriff which was the term used in the jury instructions.
- finding that the appellant had to prove that he reported information not already known to the Board of Supervisors or Sheriff, as that was not required under the jury instructions.
- straying from what was required to be proven pursuant to the jury instructions.
There is no timeline as to when the Iowa Supreme Court could decide whether it will take up the case. Carter is seeking the initial jury verdict and attorney fees.
