## Facts

- Tom Fitzgerald worked as a production foreman at Salsbury Chemical’s Charles City plant and supervised production worker Richard Koresh.
- Koresh had given deposition testimony in prior wrongful-discharge litigation against Salsbury that allegedly contradicted management’s account of an internal investigation.
- After the deposition, Koresh allegedly was ostracized and told the company would “find a way to fire him.”
- On August 30, 1995, Koresh failed to monitor a chemical mixing tank’s temperature and pressure, creating a potentially dangerous condition.
- Salsbury suspended Koresh on September 4, 1995, and terminated him on September 19, 1995.
- Fitzgerald, as Koresh’s supervisor, was terminated on September 19, 1995, only hours after Koresh’s discharge.
- Fitzgerald alleged that, during a discussion about Koresh’s discipline, he said firing Koresh for a single mistake was unfair; the operations manager responded that Fitzgerald should “figure out which side he was on” because the matter could result in a lawsuit.
- Fitzgerald claimed Salsbury discharged him because he refused to support Koresh’s termination and because Salsbury believed Fitzgerald would provide testimony favorable to Koresh in expected litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa’s public-policy exception to employment at will protects an employee from discharge motivated by an employer’s desire to prevent truthful testimony or other participation in legal proceedings, including anticipated participation.
2. Whether Fitzgerald produced sufficient evidence of causation to create a jury question on a prima facie claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Salsbury/Cambrex and remanded.
- The court held that Iowa public policy protects employees from discharge motivated by an employer’s effort to deter or punish truthful participation in judicial proceedings, including anticipated testimony.
- The court held Fitzgerald presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to generate a jury question on whether his discharge was causally connected to that protected activity.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge when termination violates a clearly defined state public policy.
- Public policy favoring the integrity of the judicial process protects employees from discharge intended to interfere with truthful testimony or other lawful participation in litigation.
- Protection extends not only to employees who have testified but also to those the employer believes will testify or otherwise participate.
- On summary judgment, the question is whether the evidence permits a reasonable inference of a causal link between the discharge and the protected (or anticipated protected) conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that an at-will employee may pursue a wrongful-discharge claim when the employer terminates the employee to chill or retaliate for truthful, even anticipated, participation in legal proceedings, and that Fitzgerald’s evidence was sufficient to require a jury determination.


Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chem., Inc., 613 N.W.2d 275 (Iowa 2000)