Ronald Earl Longstaff

In Rodgers v. HY-VEE, INC., plaintiff Cindy Rodgers alleged that her supervisor at a Hy-Vee grocery store created a hostile work environment through repeated sexual comments, advances, and intimidating behavior, leading her to resign after about four months on the job. The defendant employer moved for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, asserting that it maintained anti-harassment policies, acted promptly by investigating and firing the supervisor once notified, and thus qualified for the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense. The court found material questions of fact remained, particularly whether the employer had adequately monitored the supervisor or exercised reasonable care to prevent the harassment before the plaintiff's report, and therefore denied summary judgment. The opinion analyzes both vicarious liability and direct negligence theories but focuses on the affirmative defense elements.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned the government's civil forfeiture action against 627 firearms seized from Bela Hummel after ATF agents searched his Iowa property pursuant to a warrant. Hummel had pleaded guilty to willfully dealing firearms without a federal license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and the parties disputed how many of the seized guns were "involved in" the offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(d)(1) and 983, whether forfeiture would be an excessive fine, and whether Hummel could transfer ownership of any non-forfeited guns despite his status as a convicted felon barred from possessing firearms. The court reviewed evidence of Hummel's repeated purchases and sales at gun shows over many years, analyzed the statutory forfeiture standards, and addressed whether allowing Hummel to designate a transferee would amount to prohibited constructive possession.

gunscriminal law

In this case, plaintiff Clayton Heyne sued his employer HGI-Lakeside, Inc. after the casino placed him on medical leave following his request for accommodations due to chronic back pain that limited his ability to stand for full shifts. Heyne alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It held that Heyne failed to show he was disabled under the ADA because his back condition did not substantially limit a major life activity, that there was no evidence the employer regarded him as disabled, and that the placement on leave did not constitute actionable retaliation under either statute.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a product liability lawsuit brought by Marty Cummings against Deere & Company after his 2004 John Deere combine harvester was destroyed by fire while harvesting soybeans, alleging defects in the fuel tank related to electrostatic discharge and breach of warranty. The court addressed Deere's motions to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert Dr. Charles Roberts, to strike portions of his rebuttal disclosure, and for summary judgment. The court excluded Dr. Roberts' opinions on the fire's cause under Daubert standards, finding they lacked reliable methodology, were not supported by case-specific testing or data, and instead relied on analysis from unrelated Kansas litigation and selective DTAC reports. Without admissible expert evidence to establish a product defect, the court granted summary judgment to Deere on both claims, noting that Iowa warranty liability also requires proof of a defect.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves claims by PFS Distribution Company and its parent against former general manager Darrell Raduechel and sales manager Barry Spain, who resigned in 2004 and formed a competing food distribution business called D&B Solutions with financing from MidWestOne Bank and accounting help from TD&T; the suit alleges misappropriation of confidential customer, sales, and profit data from the Oskaloosa facility. The district court addressed four cross-motions for summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) on issues including trade-secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and related claims. The court found genuine factual disputes over the confidentiality of the information and the defendants' knowledge and use of it, denied full summary judgment to most parties, noted a lack of evidence against bank officer Hicks personally, and clarified that certain counts such as copyright infringement remained for trial.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Michael Chapman, a former Union Pacific Railroad employee, against LabOne, a certified drug-testing laboratory, arising from a 1999 random urine test that LabOne reported as 'substituted' and inconsistent with normal human urine, resulting in Chapman's termination. Chapman alleged improper handling and testing of his sample. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after striking portions of the plaintiff's expert testimony as unreliable and outside the expert's report, finding no admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the claims. It also addressed related motions to strike and objections but concluded the record did not support liability.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved three defendants charged after Iowa deputies stopped their Winnebago twice on Interstate 80, with the second stop leading to a K-9 search that uncovered evidence of drug offenses. The court granted the defendants' motions to suppress all evidence obtained from the Dallas County stop and search. The core reasoning was that Deputy Genovese lacked an objective basis for the stop, as he had seen the valid temporary plate before activating his lights, and instead relied on a pretextual call from another deputy describing the occupants as suspicious, making the prolonged detention and search violations of the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Iowa purchasers of Microsoft software in Iowa state court in 2000, which was amended multiple times with classes certified by the state court in 2003. Microsoft removed the case to federal court in October 2005 upon receiving plaintiffs' proposed fourth amended complaint, arguing that it raised federal questions under securities laws and fell under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs then modified their proposed complaint to eliminate any federal claims and moved to remand the case back to state court. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that removal jurisdiction is assessed based on the pleadings at the time of removal but that plaintiffs retained the ability to alter the unaccepted proposed amendments, leaving no federal question jurisdiction. The court also dismissed Microsoft's related motions as moot and directed the case back to the Iowa District Court for Polk County.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between competing real estate companies, Coldwell Banker and Iowa Realty, over antitrust claims, breach of contract, and breach of an implied covenant related to a software sub-license and a new marketing program. Following an Eighth Circuit decision that dissolved a preliminary injunction and weakened the plaintiff's contract claims, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement with provisions limiting public statements about the dismissal. Coldwell Banker moved to enforce the settlement, while Iowa Realty cross-moved for rescission, citing statements by Coldwell Banker's representative to the press that allegedly violated the public statement restrictions. The court granted enforcement of the settlement agreement and denied rescission, concluding that the circumstances did not support Iowa Realty's equitable claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved PFS Distribution Company's motion to dismiss defendant Darrell Raduechel's counterclaim seeking unpaid bonus compensation for fiscal year 2004 under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act, breach of oral and written contracts, and promissory estoppel. The court granted the motion to dismiss all counts, holding that the parties' written Sales/Distribution Branch Incentive Plan unambiguously delegated discretion to PFS to deny any bonus if it determined the employee's performance or attitude was unsatisfactory, rendering the decision unreviewable by courts. The court denied Raduechel's separate Rule 11 motion for sanctions, concluding PFS's arguments were warranted by existing law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Xelan, Inc., its affiliates, and founder petitioning to quash an IRS administrative summons issued to AmerUs Life Insurance Company for documents on Xelan's 419 Welfare Benefit Plan, including participant identities, as part of a tax shelter compliance investigation under IRC Sections 6700 and 7408. The government moved for summary enforcement of the summons, and AmerUs intervened with objections. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denied the petition to quash, and granted the motion for summary enforcement. The court found the summons valid and enforceable following review of the factual background on Xelan's programs and the IRS agent's investigation, while directing further efforts to address the intervenor's remaining objections.

taxesfederal power

In Johnson v. University of Iowa, plaintiff David Johnson, a biological father and university employee, challenged the school's parental leave policy under Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Iowa Civil Rights Act, and the Iowa Constitution. The policy allowed biological mothers to use accumulated sick leave for pregnancy-related disability and gave adoptive parents up to five days of paid leave charged to sick leave, but did not extend similar paid caregiving leave to biological fathers. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. It reasoned that the distinctions in the policy were based on actual differences in medical needs and adoption processes rather than impermissible sex discrimination, and that the policy was rationally related to legitimate interests without violating equal protection or anti-discrimination statutes.

civil rightslabor & employmentfamily law

This case concerns a dispute between food distributor PFS and two former managers of its Oskaloosa, Iowa facility who resigned to form a competing company, allegedly taking confidential customer, financial, and operational information in violation of non-compete and confidentiality agreements. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to bar the defendants from competing or using the information and also sought sanctions for alleged pre-litigation destruction of computer evidence. After a two-day hearing and review of deposition transcripts and other materials, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the defendants had full access to proprietary data, that the information qualified as protectable trade secrets or confidential business information under Iowa law, and that the balance of equities and likelihood of success on the merits supported injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Gaxiola, the defendant moved to suppress approximately 88 pounds of cocaine discovered during a search of his vehicle following a traffic stop on Interstate 80 in Iowa. The court denied the motion to suppress. The initial stop for failure to display a front license plate was lawful, and the trooper's questions about travel plans were permissible; conflicting statements from the driver and passenger created reasonable suspicion that justified extending the detention briefly. The defendant voluntarily consented to the search during this lawful detention, so there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute under the Lanham Act between plaintiff Lindgren, an Iowa resident selling jewelry for jeans under the registered mark "JEANJANGLES," and defendant GDT, a California company selling similar products under the mark "JEAN JEWEL" via its website and other outlets. GDT moved to dismiss the Iowa action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer venue to the Central District of California. The court denied dismissal but granted the transfer, finding that GDT lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa—limited to a handful of post-filing website sales representing a tiny fraction of its revenue—to satisfy due process for jurisdiction there, though such contacts supported jurisdiction in California where GDT is based and the case could proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Charles McBurney suing his former employer, an automobile dealership, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after he took leave for appendicitis in 2000, was reassigned to different positions upon return (including quality control manager and service advisor), experienced increased stress and mental health issues, was placed on additional FMLA leave, and was ultimately terminated. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation due to lack of evidence of a causal connection between his leave and the employment actions, that any change in position did not result in lost wages or benefits, and that emotional distress damages are unavailable under the FMLA.

labor & employment

The case involved Ann LeClair, a former Wells Fargo Bank Iowa employee with a history of depression and mental health hospitalizations, who sued the bank under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging she faced increased scrutiny, warnings, a demotion to a reduced-hour position, and termination after disclosing her condition and experiencing performance lapses. LeClair claimed differential treatment compared to coworkers without mental health issues and that her impairments substantially limited major life activities. The court granted Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment, concluding that LeClair failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether she was disabled under the ADA because her condition did not substantially limit any major life activity and she lacked a documented record of disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). The ruling ended the case without reaching other elements of the discrimination claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a former industrial technology teacher at the Indianola Community School District who alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under federal and state civil rights laws after requesting accommodations for his skin condition (pityriasis rubra pilaris) and filing complaints with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and EEOC. The plaintiff claimed the district failed to adequately accommodate his need for air-conditioned workspaces and permission to wear shorts, and that he faced negative evaluations and other actions in response to his complaints. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, reviewing undisputed facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff regarding his medical condition, scheduling requests, and employment history from 1980 until his 1999 resignation. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the claims of disability or retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Janice Spearman’s application for attorney’s fees and costs under ERISA after she obtained short-term and long-term disability benefits from the Motorola Disability Income Plan through administrative channels following the filing of her federal lawsuit. The court decided to award a reduced fee amount of $9,543.75 rather than the full $20,625 requested, after reviewing time entries and objections. It applied the five factors from Martin v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, determining that defendant’s delay and handling of the claims showed some culpability, that defendant could pay, and that an award would have deterrent value, while the remaining factors were neutral or less relevant. The court then disallowed hours spent on the administrative appeals process before suit, on the now-moot short-term benefits claim, and on entries deemed vague or insufficiently detailed.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved two shoppers, an African-American woman and a Hispanic man, who were detained by police at a mall after Dillard's employees reported them as possibly connected to check-forgery suspects based on a description and their use of personal checks, which triggered an automated decline under store policy. Plaintiffs sued Dillard's and city police officers under federal civil rights statutes (§1983, §1981, §1982) and state tort claims including false arrest and assault. On summary judgment, the court granted defendants' motions on the §1983 and false arrest claims due to insufficient evidence of constitutional violations or lack of reasonable belief, but denied summary judgment on the assault and battery claims against city defendants and on the §1981 and §1982 claims against Dillard's, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding excessive force and discriminatory intent in contract enforcement. The court deferred ruling on Iowa constitutional claims pending further hearing.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability