Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Tina Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided June 23, 2017No. 15–0574Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAppel, Justice
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part from the majority/plurality opinion. In my view, only the instruction related to material adverse action in connection with plaintiffs retaliation claim is flawed. I find the district court properly instructed the jury on all other issues in this case.
I. Factual and Procedural Background.
Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC (HES) is an ethanol processing facility in Lawler, Iowa, where it opened in February 2009. Tina Haskenhoff began work at HES *605as a’lab manager immediately upon its opening.
Kevin Howes was Haskenhoffs supervisor. Howes, along with…
2Cases cited195 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. EllerthSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
190 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.