Summary
The Iowa Supreme Court held that an Iowa attorney general’s certification under Iowa Code section 669.5(2)(a) does not apply to common-law claims alleging that state employees acted outside the scope of their employment. The court ruled that the individual defendants could remain parties until a court or fact finder determined whether their conduct was within the scope of employment, at which point the State could be substituted if appropriate. The court reversed and remanded the case to the district court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the attorney general's certification under Iowa Code section 669.5(2)(a) applies to common-law claims alleging that state employees acted outside the scope of their employment.
- Whether the individual defendants may remain parties until a fact finder determines whether their alleged conduct was within the scope of employment.
Holdings
- The attorney general's certification under Iowa Code section 669.5(2)(a) applies only to claims brought under the Iowa Tort Claims Act and does not apply to common-law tort claims alleging that state employees acted outside the scope of their employment.
- When a factual dispute exists concerning whether a state employee acted within the scope of employment, the employee remains a defendant until the fact finder determines the issue; if the employee is found to have acted within the scope of employment, the State must be substituted as defendant.
Key quotations
“Thus, we conclude the attorney general’s certification can only apply to actions brought under the Iowa Tort Claims Act and not those brought against an employee acting outside the scope of employment.” (847 N.W.2d at 586)
“We hold the Iowa Tort Claims Act only applies to torts committed by state employees when acting within the scope of their employment.” (847 N.W.2d at 588)
Factual background
Christopher J. Godfrey was appointed Iowa workers' compensation commissioner in 2009 for a six-year term. After Terry Branstad became governor-elect, he demanded Godfrey's resignation; after Godfrey refused, Godfrey alleged that senior officials attempted to intimidate and harass him into resigning and that the governor reduced his salary. Godfrey asserted constitutional and common-law claims against the State and individual officials, including interference, defamation, and extortion claims.
Procedural history
Godfrey sued the State of Iowa and several state officials in their individual and official capacities. After the attorney general certified that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, the district court granted substitution of the State for the individual defendants on counts VI through XVI and dismissed counts X through XV pursuant to the parties' agreement. The Iowa Supreme Court granted interlocutory review, reversed the substitution and dismissals, and remanded for a fact finder to determine whether the individual defendants acted within the scope of their employment.
Remand instructions
Reverse the district court's substitution of the State in counts VI through XVI and dismissal of counts X through XV. Remand for the fact finder to determine whether each individual defendant's alleged actions were within the scope of employment; if so, the court should substitute the State as defendant.