Iowa Supreme Court: Former agent, alleged whistleblower can’t seek higher damages retroactively

The Iowa Supreme Court says a former Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation supervisor who alleged he was fired in 2013 for being a whistleblower can’t retroactively seek extra civil damages.

Larry Hedlund, a 25-year veteran of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, was off duty April 26, 2013, when he spotted a state-owned SUV speeding in north-central Iowa. He called in the speeding vehicle, but the Iowa State Patrol decided not to pull over the driver because the vehicle was carrying former Gov. Terry Branstad and then-Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds.

Trooper Steve Lawrence later was given a $181 speeding ticket in connection with the incident on Highway 20. Branstad pledged troopers driving him around the state would no longer speed, but another trooper transporting the governor and lieutenant governor was stopped for speeding in August 2013.

Shortly after complaining about the initial lack of action, Hedlund was fired. He sued in 2013, claiming age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also asserted he could claim damages as a whistleblower.

The Iowa Supreme Court in 2019 affirmed the District Court’s decision dismissing the age discrimination and emotional distress claims, but said the whistleblower claim could proceed. That case still is being considered in Polk County District Court.

Three days after that 2019 ruling — but six years after Hedlund was fired — a law went into effect that would allow whistleblowers claiming wrongful discharge or retaliation to seek civil damages up to three times their annual state salary and benefits, among other provisions.

Hedlund asked the District Court to declare these amendments applied to his claim and he was entitled to pursue the additional damages and get a jury trial. The District Court granted Hedlund’s motion.

But the Supreme Court in Friday’s ruling reversed that decision.

“The legislature included no express language in the statute to give it retrospective application,” the ruling states.

The court said the decision was consistent with prior cases in which justices did not retroactively apply laws, such as a new “stand your ground” law, to older cases because if it was the Legislature’s intent the law should apply retroactively, lawmakers would have written it that way.

Comments: (319) 339-3157; erin.jordan@thegazette.com