A former Lee County employee has been dealt another setback in his effort to receive the damages awarded to him by a jury nearly two years ago.
The Iowa Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 this week that District Court Judge Mary Ann Brown acted properly in setting aside the February 2013 verdict in favor of Rick Carter, who was fired in Nov. 2010 from his job as Lee County Maintenance Director.
Carter sued the county in May 2011, claiming he was fired for speaking out about rule violations, mismanagement, and an abuse of funds by the Lee County Board of Supervisors.
The February 2013 jury sided with him and awarded him $186,000 in damages. But shortly afterwards, Judge Brown set aside the verdict because she said Carter did not prove he was a whistleblower and because there was not enough evidence to have even sent the trial to the jury.
Chief Judge David Danilson and Judge Mary Tabor of the appeals court sided with the county.
"We conclude the district court properly interpreted the whistleblower statute and viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Carter. Applying those legal standards, the district court correctly determined no reasonable jury could have found Carter engaged in protected activity."
In the 18-page ruling, Tabor supported the portions of testimony used by Judge Brown to reach her decision to set aside the verdict.
"The court considered the county's cross-examination of Carter to be a more concise itemization of what he asserted the county had done wrong and relied on that testimony to analyze Carter's whistleblower protection. We see no error in the court's reliance on Carter's cross-examination testimony."
Judge Richard Doyle disagreed with his colleagues and offered a six-page dissent. In it, he said Judge Brown should not have set aside the verdict.
"I believe the evidence was sufficient to have the jury decide the question. The determination of whether an employee was 'engaged in the protected activity (of whistleblowing)' is a jury question and therefore the question for whether Carter was 'reasonable in believing that a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, a grow abuse of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety existed or had occurred' was a question for the jury."
Judge Doyle said the jury verdict and the damages should have been reinstated.
Carter could appeal this week's decision to the Iowa Supreme Court.
