The opinion
In the Iowa Supreme Court
No. 24–1352
Submitted September 10, 2025—Filed November 14, 2025
Ashley Hall and Ryan Hall, on behalf of minor child A.H.,
Appellees,
vs.
Southeast Polk Junior High School–Southeast Polk Community School
District, Dirk Halupnik, Joseph Horton, Michael Dailey, Jacob Bartels, and
Georgia Casner, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast
Polk Community School District,
Appellants.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,
judge.
The defendants appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss certain chapter
216 and common law claims on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to meet the
pleading requirements of Iowa Code section 670.4A. Appeal Dismissed and
Case Remanded.
Per curiam.
Lindsay A. Vaught and Samuel A. McMichael of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C.,
Des Moines, for appellants.
Christopher Stewart and Marrissa Pasker of Boles Witosky Stewart Law
PLLC, Des Moines, for appellees.
2
Per Curiam.
This appeal is substantially similar to the one we decided today in Fogle &
Fogle ex rel. P.F. v. Clay Elementary School–Southeast Polk Community School
District, ___ N.W.3d ___ (Iowa 2025). We are asked to decide whether the Iowa
Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA) and its qualified immunity pleading standard,
Iowa Code § 670.4A(3) (2022), apply to claims against a municipality brought
under Iowa Code chapter 216, the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). As we explained
in Fogle, ICRA claims against a school district and its employees are not “brought
under” the IMTCA and, as such, are not subject to its heightened pleading
requirements. ___ N.W.3d at ___. Additionally, as we held in Fogle, the IMTCA’s
heightened pleading standard does not apply to the common law tort claims in
this appeal. Id. at ___. The district court properly denied the defendants’ motion
to dismiss.
I.
Ashley and Ryan Hall, on behalf of their minor child A.H., filed suit against
Southeast Polk Junior High School–Southeast Polk Community School District
and several of its employees based on the alleged bullying, discrimination,
harassment, and physical abuse that A.H. faced as a seventh-grade student
during the 2022–2023 school year. A.H. has an Individual Education Plan (IEP)
because she experiences ADHD and anxiety. The Halls allege that the defendants
knowingly failed to accommodate A.H. under the terms of her IEP. They also
allege that A.H.’s seventh-grade teacher, Georgia Casner, discriminated against
A.H. on two occasions based on A.H.’s disability and her sex as a female. Finally,
the Halls allege that A.H. faced unrelenting verbal and physical abuse from other
students at the school, which the defendants knew about but failed to prevent
despite receiving numerous complaints from the Halls.
3
The Halls followed the procedural requirements of the ICRA and received
a right-to-sue letter from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. See generally Iowa
Code §§ 216.15–16. The Halls then filed a ten-count amended petition in the
Iowa District Court for Polk County on April 30, 2024. As relevant for this appeal,
the Halls asserted four claims under the ICRA and two common law tort claims.
The ICRA claims under Iowa Code § 216.9 were asserted against the school
district for disability discrimination with respect to education (count II), sex
discrimination with respect to education (count III), and sex and disability
harassment with respect to education (count IV). The Halls also asserted an ICRA
claim under Iowa Code § 216.11 for aiding and abetting education discrimination
(count VI) against Southeast Polk superintendent Dirk Halupnik, associate
superintendent Joseph Horton, Southeast Polk Junior High School principal
Michael Dailey, assistant principal Jacob Bartels, and junior high teacher
Georgia Casner. The Halls further asserted common law tort claims against all
defendants, including as relevant here, claims for breach of fiduciary duty (count
VII) and negligence (count VIII).
II.
The defendants moved to dismiss some of the Halls’ claims in their
entirety.1 The defendants argued that counts II–IV and VI, all ICRA claims, failed
to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the IMTCA. See Iowa Code
§ 670.4A(3) (requiring a petition for a claim “brought under” the IMTCA to plead
a violation of clearly established law with particularity and plausibility). The
1The district court granted the motion with respect to two counts. It dismissed count I, a
claim for bullying in violation of Iowa Code § 280.28, on the basis that the statute did not imply
a private cause of action. It also dismissed count IX, a common law claim for negligent training
and supervision, on the basis that the petition failed to meet the heightened pleading standards
under Iowa Code § 670.4A. See id. § 670.4A(3) (requiring dismissal with prejudice if the
heightened pleading standard is not met). The ruling on those claims is not part of this appeal
brought by the defendants.
4
district court ruled that the IMTCA’s heightened pleading standard does not
apply to ICRA claims against a municipality and denied the defendants’ motion
as to those claims. For the reasons set forth in Fogle, the district court was
correct in that ruling. See ___ N.W.3d at ___.
The defendants also argue on appeal that the breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence claims (counts VII and VIII) against Halupnik and Casner must be
dismissed for failing to meet the IMTCA’s heightened pleading standard. As we
said in Fogle, however, the heightened pleading standard does not apply to
common law tort claims against a municipality. Id. at ___. The district court
properly denied dismissal of the Halls’ breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
claims as asserted against Halupnik and Casner.
III.
The defendants appealed as a matter of right under section 670.4A. As we
explained in Fogle, if section 670.4A does not apply to a claim, then subsection
(4) does not authorize an appeal as a matter of right. Id. at ___. For these reasons,
we dismiss the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings.
Appeal Dismissed and Case Remanded.
This opinion shall not be published.