CASE SUMMARY 11.1 Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751 lowa 2009) PUBLIC POL
ID: 435649 • Letter: C
Question
CASE SUMMARY 11.1 Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751 lowa 2009) PUBLIC POLICY EXECPTION Jasper was hired as the director of Kid University (KU), a child care facility in Johnston, lowa. She was paid an hourly wage, and there were no specific terms of employment. A short time after Jasper started her employment, the husband and wife owners of KU announced that the facility would need to cut staff in order to reduce overhead. Jasper complained that any staff cuts would place KU in jeopardy of violating state administrative regulations related to the minimum ratios between staff and children. The issue of the staff-children ratio was the source of considerable Page 391 tension between Jasper and KU's owners. The owners insisted that Jasper find a way to cut staff expenses, and Jasper continued to assert that the current staffing was necessary for compliance with state regulations. The owners eventually proposed that Jasper and her assistant director begin to work in the classroom to help reduce staffing costs. However, Jasper protested any job responsibility change and asserted that the staffing ratio would still not be compliant with state regulations. Soon thereafter, KU terminated Jasper from her employment at the facility Jasper brought a wrongful-discharge suit against KU and its owners, claiming that her firing was based on her refusal to violate the staff-children ratio and that such a termination was a violation of public policy. The trial court found in favor of KU because Jasper was an employee at-will and had not demonstrated that KU violated "well-recognized and clearly defined public policy." CASE QUESTIONS 1. Who prevails and why? 2. KU pointed out that there was no evidence that it actually violated the regulation during Jasper's period of employment. Shouldn't an employer have to "act" before any public policy concerns justify an exception to the employment-at-will rule? . Does the court's ruling mean that all state administrative regulations are now the source of public policy considerations?Explanation / Answer
1. Kid University would prevail because when Jasper was fired, staff cutting was not done and so administrative regulations were not yet violated. In addition, Jasper was not able to prove that KU violated clearly defined and well recognized public policy.
2. In this case the public policy has not yet been violated. So, Jasper has no way of proving the employer's intentions of violating the adminstrative regulations. Unless she proves the intentions of her employer to downsize and to violate the law tomaintain required staff-children ratio, it is difficult for her to win the case. Further, her employers can state poor performace as the reason for firing her.
3. If somehow Jasper wins the case, then the court's ruling will mean that all state administrative regulations are now the source of public policy considerations. Otherwise it will not be so.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.