Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—Iowa Sup. Ct.: Forklift operator fired for safety violations, not age or disability bias, (Jun 24, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The long-tenured employee failed to present sufficient evidence that he suffers from a qualifying disability or that his employer committed age discrimination.

A forklift operator for an agricultural company who was fired after 36 years of employment, and after two heart attacks that left him unable to work night shifts on a regular basis, failed to show he was disabled or perceived as disabled under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the state’s high court ruled, reversing the judgment of the state appeals court and affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim. Nor was the employee, who had been involved in several significant safety violations shortly before his termination, able to successfully challenge the company’s honest belief he was a safety risk, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim as well (McClure v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. dba Corteva Agriscience, No. 23-0628 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Jun. 20, 2025)).

As a product technician for the company for 36 years, the employee used a forklift to move products around its shipping and processing facility. He primarily worked the third shift, from 10 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., or the night shift from 6 p.m. to 6:15 a.m. In addition, he served as an emergency medical technician at a county hospital and as a city firefighter.

First heart attack. As a result of a 2014 heart attack, his doctor prohibited him from working the night shift and the company placed him on day shifts only. He did, however, continue to work night shifts one to two nights a week for his other jobs.

Doctor’s notes. Three years later, a new manager told him he needed a new doctor’s note. Although the manager rejected the first two notes the employee submitted, asking for further clarification of his limits, the employee provided a third note stating that he could work an occasional overnight shift if needed. In response to his manager’s requests, the employee complained about age and disability discrimination. He also reported the manager’s comment questioning why he should adhere to his work restrictions when he was a volunteer fire fighter with overnight fires.

Second heart attack. After a second heart attack in April 2019, the employee took short-term disability leave. Upon his return, he complained of migraines and in 2020, he claimed the migraines were responsible for his various attendance issues. In response, a supervisor purportedly told him “I really doubt that, I think you’re just trying to sleep in.”

Safety violations. In September 2017, the employee received a written warning for several safety violations involving his forklift. In 2020, he was involved in a serious safety incident at a loading dock for which he was given a final written warning. Two weeks later, he received a warning regarding his tardiness and unplanned absences.

Termination. Following a collision with another forklift two months after that, and a “near miss” incident just two days later, the employee was fired for his “continued failure to meet performance and safety expectations.”

Lower court proceedings. He then sued, asserting claims under the ICRA for age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation and the district court granted summary judgment to his employer on all claims. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his retaliation and hostile work environment claim but reversed as to his age and disability discrimination claims.

Disability discrimination. Turning first on appeal to the employee’s disability discrimination claim, and specifically that it should not follow caselaw predating the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, the state high court noted that working was the only major life activity he identified as being limited by his medical condition. Further, observed the court, “federal courts have made clear that nothing in the ADAAA ‘suggests that Congress intended to modify, let alone abandon altogether, the well-established understanding that an employee’s ‘inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’”

The court also pointed out that “every Circuit that has addressed this question in the aftermath of the ADAAA also has held that Congress’s amendments did not change the fact that ‘a plaintiff alleging a work-related disability must show that his condition precludes him from working in a class or broad range of jobs.’” These principles, said the court, addressing work as a major life activity continue to guide the question of whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits their ability to work.

And here, said the court, while the employee asserted that his medical condition limited his ability to work back-to-back overnight shifts, he made no showing as to his employability in other positions inside or outside the company. Accordingly, the court found his dayshift-only limitation was a “rather narrow limitation [that] did not significantly curtail [his] ability to obtain other employment” without that limitation and he failed to show his condition amounted to a disability.

Perceived disability. Nor did he show the company perceived him as disabled, said the court, noting that he provided no evidence it rested his firing on myths, fears, or stereotypes about his medical condition. Thus, said the court, the district court was correct to dismiss this claim.

Age discrimination. Assuming the employee established a prima face case of age discrimination and that the company offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing him—his safety record—the court addressed whether he sufficiently established he was really fired because of his age. Here, the court found the employee failed to sufficiently challenge the company’s assertion it honestly believed he was a safety risk.

Within a two-month period of time, the court observed, the employee was involved in the loading dock mishap, the forklift collision, and another near miss and a sensor on his forklift recorded a disproportionate number of “impacts” compared to the rest of the warehouse workers. None of his evidence, including various disputes about the incidents and some positive performance reviews, showed that the company “did not honestly believe the legitimate reason that it proffered in support” of its decision to fire him.

While the employee, in an attempt to show pretext, pointed to younger employees who were involved in two of the same safety violations but were not fired, there was no evidence they had the same records of frequent, serious safety violations or the same disciplinary history. Thus, this comparator evidence was not sufficient to show pretext.

Discriminatory atmosphere. As to the employee’s attempt to show management discriminated against older employees by subjecting them to unwarranted monitoring and discipline that would eventually force them to quit or lead to their termination, while he pointed to declarations and deposition testimony of several older employees in support, much of their testimony was unsupported speculation on topics such as the reason he was fired and whether other employees were disciplined without justification. As a result, the court found he failed to show the company took adverse actions against its employees based on their age.

The case is No. 23-0628.

Judge: May, D.

Attorneys: Megan C. Flynn (Flynn Law Firm) for Darrell Jeffrey McClure. Terran C. Chambers (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath) for E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. dba Corteva Agriscience.

Companies: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Corteva Agriscience

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination StateLawClaims Discharge IowaNews