Justices clear Reynolds of wrongful termination claim

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court dismissed claims against Gov. Kim Reynolds and a former communications director in a wrongful termination lawsuit, but in a Friday opinion allowed a claim against the state to proceed.

Polly Carver-Kimm sued the state, Reynolds and the governor's former communications director Pat Garrett in 2020, alleging she was fired from her position as the communications director for the Iowa Department of Public Health for fulfilling records requests from journalists.

A district court previously denied a motion to dismiss the case, and the defendants appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Justices did not decide whether Carver-Kimm was wrongfully terminated. They sent the case back to the district court to decide that.

A spokesperson for Reynolds declined to comment.

Reynolds, Garrett and the state asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing Carver-Kimm had no grounds to justify a wrongful termination. Reynolds and Garrett also argued they had no legal authority to discharge Carver-Kimm.

Lawyers for Carver-Kimm argued that Reynolds and Garrett had exerted influence over her termination.

Justice Matthew McDermott wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justices Thomas Waterman and Edward Mansfield. The majority sided with Reynolds, saying Iowa law grants the department director full authority over employment decisions, while no law grants that authority to the governor.

The justices said Carver-Kimm may pursue her claims against the state, which involve two claims of wrongful termination: that her firing violated Iowa’s whistleblower-protection law, and that her firing violated a “clearly defined public policy,” specifically Iowa’s open records law.

The public records law outlines which records maintained by state agencies must be provided to the public upon request, and what information can remain confidential. Carver-Kimm said she faced retaliation after responding to public records requests early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Carver-Kimm said in court filings Garrett and supervisors at the department directed her to hold responses to records requests and advised her that all news releases should be routed through the governor’s office.

Carver-Kimm said she was removed from responding to all records requests in June 2020 after she informed certain news outlets that they could modify their requests and receive the requested information more quickly. She also complied with a request for responses to all open records requests by any other media organization. According to her petition, she fulfilled some requests after that was removed as part of her job duties.

In July 2020, Carver-Kimm was asked to resign or be terminated, and chose to resign, according to court records.

The state previously had argued the public records law is not “well-recognized public policy.” But the court disagreed.

“When Carver-Kimm was the custodian of records at the department, she was under a statutory duty to fulfill proper requests for public records. … If Carver-Kimm was discharged for complying with that duty — which is what she alleges in her petition — those circumstances could support a claim,” McDermott wrote.

The court also allowed Carver-Kimm’s claim of wrongful termination under whistleblower protections to advance.

In a separate opinion by Justice Christopher McDonald and joined by Justices Dana Oxley and David May, the justices agreed with most of the majority opinion but argued the open records law does not support a wrongful termination claim based on a violation of public policy. Because Iowa’s open records law allows individuals to pursue civil lawsuits for a violation, it does not create a cause of action for wrongful termination, McDonald argued.

The justices also argued Carver-Kimm did not have an obligation to respond to open records requests after her superiors removed it from her job responsibilities. If she was fired for responding to records after that point, they said it would not constitute a wrongful termination.

“In sum, Carver-Kimm alleges she resigned in lieu of termination after producing records she no longer had the statutory responsibility or authority to produce,” McDonald wrote.

Tom Duff, a lawyer representing Carver-Kimm, said they were disappointed the court dismissed their claims against Reynolds, but they were satisfied with the overall decision.

“In the broader scheme of things, beyond Polly's case, it sends a message to other public information officers that they can do their job, disclose lawfully requested records, and the employer cannot retaliate against them for doing so,” he said.