# Springer v. Weeks and Leo Co., Inc.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · September 21, 1988 · 429 N.W.2d 558

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688432

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary SPRINGER, Appellant, v. WEEKS AND LEO COMPANY, INC., Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** September 21, 1988
- **Citations:** 429 N.W.2d 558; 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1345; 1988 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 248; 1988 WL 96492
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harris
- **Judges:** Carter, Harris, McGiverin, Schultz
- **Cited by:** 122 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Modified by Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., Inc., 1991 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 336 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688432

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an employer’s discharge of an employee who had pursued her statutory right to workers’ compensation claim against her employer violated public policy and was actionable tortious conduct
- finding it is a violation of Iowa public policy for an employer to terminate employees, including “at will” employees, for filing a workers’ compensation claim

## Opinion text

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
Not every private or social wrong is appropriate as a basis for a tort remedy. I dissent because I think an employee at will should not be allowed damages for losing a job which had no tenure.
*564 I. The facts alleged against this employer are deeply offensive. I enthusiastically join the majority in condemning any employer who would fire an employee merely for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim. But persons employed under contracts at will may lose their jobs at the whim of the employer. The majority does not dispute this but holds that a tort arises when the employee is fired, not for a frivolous reason, but for a socially or legally objectionable reason. When, as here, the objectionable reason is especially offensive, it tends to blur the fact that the employee had, after all, no legal right to continued employment. Because, however, there was no such right there should be no tort recovery merely because the employer acted from a bad motive rather than a whim.
II. There is another reason why we should not fashion this tort remedy. It will be nearly impossible for us to do what the legislature easily could do: set the reasonable metes and bounds for fixing damages. Cases from other states show there is no consistent way to measure them because the employee had no fixed employment rights for any fixed period. See Annotation 32 A.L.R.4th 1221 .
I would affirm.
McGIVERIN, C.J., and SCHULTZ, J., join this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9688432. Public record. Not legal advice.