Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing
Headline: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Employers in Disability Discrimination Case
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Employee fired for inability to perform essential job function loses disability discrimination claim because he didn't prove discrimination or request accommodation.
- Document your disability and any limitations.
- Formally request specific reasonable accommodations in writing.
- If denied accommodation or terminated, consult an employment lawyer.
Case Summary
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing, decided by Iowa Supreme Court on April 11, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The plaintiff, Scott Hampe, sued Charles Gabus Motors and Gadimina Enterprises for alleged violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after he was terminated from employment. Hampe claimed his termination was due to a disability and that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Hampe failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that the defendants had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. The court held: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that his termination was motivated by his disability.. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, specifically related to his performance and inability to meet job requirements.. The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith to explore reasonable accommodations for his disability.. The court found that the plaintiff's requested accommodations were unreasonable or would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the defendants' stated reasons for termination, thus failing to meet his burden of proof.. This case reinforces the burden on plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and to rebut legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by employers. It highlights the importance of the interactive process and the employer's defense of undue hardship in disability accommodation claims under Iowa law.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
If you believe you were fired because of a disability, you need to show your employer knew about your disability, you were qualified for your job, you were fired, and that the firing was because of your disability. You also need to ask for specific changes to help you do your job. In this case, the court found the employee didn't show his firing was due to his disability or that he asked for specific help.
For Legal Practitioners
The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ICRA and ADA. Crucially, the plaintiff did not demonstrate circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, nor did he request a reasonable accommodation. The employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason—inability to perform an essential job function (driving)—was not shown to be pretextual.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the plaintiff's burden in disability discrimination claims. Scott Hampe failed to establish a prima facie case by not showing his termination was linked to his disability or by requesting a reasonable accommodation. The court emphasized that an employee must actively request accommodation and demonstrate that the employer's stated reason for adverse action is pretextual, not merely that they have a disability.
Newsroom Summary
An Iowa court ruled that an employee could not sue his former employer for disability discrimination after being fired. The court found the employee failed to prove his termination was due to his disability or that he asked for specific workplace adjustments, upholding the employer's decision based on the employee's inability to perform essential job duties.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that his termination was motivated by his disability.
- The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, specifically related to his performance and inability to meet job requirements.
- The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith to explore reasonable accommodations for his disability.
- The court found that the plaintiff's requested accommodations were unreasonable or would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.
- The court concluded that the plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the defendants' stated reasons for termination, thus failing to meet his burden of proof.
Key Takeaways
- Document your disability and any limitations.
- Formally request specific reasonable accommodations in writing.
- If denied accommodation or terminated, consult an employment lawyer.
- Understand essential job functions and your ability to perform them.
- Be prepared to prove discrimination was the reason for adverse action, not just that you have a disability.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review. The appellate court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment to determine if there was an error of law, examining the record and legal arguments anew without deference to the district court's conclusions.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the appellate court after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Charles Gabus Motors, Inc. and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiff, Scott Hampe, appealed this decision.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, Scott Hampe, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To survive summary judgment, Hampe needed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims.
Legal Tests Applied
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination (ICRA/ADA)
Elements: Plaintiff is a member of a protected class (e.g., disabled). · Plaintiff was qualified for the job. · Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., termination). · Circumstances give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.
The court found Hampe failed to establish the fourth element. While he was disabled and terminated, he did not present evidence showing his termination was due to his disability or that the defendants failed to accommodate it. The evidence showed his termination was due to his inability to perform essential job functions, specifically operating a vehicle, which was a requirement of his position.
Reasonable Accommodation (ADA)
Elements: Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation. · Defendant failed to provide the accommodation. · The failure to accommodate was based on the plaintiff's disability.
The court found Hampe did not request a reasonable accommodation. He was informed that operating a vehicle was an essential function of his job, and he stated he could not do it. He did not propose alternative solutions or accommodations that would allow him to perform this essential function.
Statutory References
| Iowa Code § 216.6(1)(a) | Prohibited Employment Practices — This statute prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee based on disability. The court analyzed Hampe's claims under this provision of the ICRA. |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) | Prohibition of Discrimination by Covered Entities — This section of the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. The court considered Hampe's ADA claims alongside his ICRA claims. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ICRA, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination."
"The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action is a pretext for discrimination."
"An employer is not required to remove an essential function of a job from the job description as a reasonable accommodation."
"The plaintiff must request a reasonable accommodation."
Remedies
Affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Document your disability and any limitations.
- Formally request specific reasonable accommodations in writing.
- If denied accommodation or terminated, consult an employment lawyer.
- Understand essential job functions and your ability to perform them.
- Be prepared to prove discrimination was the reason for adverse action, not just that you have a disability.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You have a medical condition that prevents you from driving, but your job requires occasional driving. You are fired after admitting you can't drive.
Your Rights: You may have the right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA or ICRA, but you must request it and show that the employer's reason for firing you is a cover-up for discrimination.
What To Do: If you cannot perform an essential job function due to a disability, inform your employer in writing about your condition and propose specific, reasonable accommodations that would allow you to perform that function. If terminated, consult with an employment lawyer immediately.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to fire someone because they can't drive due to a disability?
It depends. If driving is an essential function of the job and the employee cannot perform it even with reasonable accommodation, the employer may be able to terminate them. However, the employer must engage in the interactive process to explore accommodations, and the employee must show the reason for termination is pretextual discrimination.
Applies to employers covered by the ADA and ICRA in Iowa.
Practical Implications
For Employees with disabilities
Employees must actively request reasonable accommodations and demonstrate that their disability was the reason for adverse employment actions, rather than just stating they have a disability. Employers are not required to remove essential job functions.
For Employers in Iowa
Employers should maintain clear job descriptions, document legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for employment actions, and engage in the interactive process when employees request accommodations. However, they are not obligated to accommodate if an employee cannot perform essential functions even with accommodation.
Related Legal Concepts
Unlawful treatment of an employee or applicant based on their physical or mental... Interactive Process
A dialogue between an employer and an employee with a disability to identify app... Pretext
A false reason given by an employer to hide the real, discriminatory reason for ...
Frequently Asked Questions (31)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (6)
Q: What is Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing about?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing is a case decided by Iowa Supreme Court on April 11, 2025.
Q: What court decided Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing was decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, which is part of the IA state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing decided?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing was decided on April 11, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
The citation for Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the main reason Scott Hampe lost his disability discrimination case?
Scott Hampe lost because he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. He did not show that his termination was due to his disability, nor did he request a reasonable accommodation from his employer.
Q: What was the outcome of the Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors case?
The Iowa appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the employer, Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc.
Legal Analysis (12)
Q: Is Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing published?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that his termination was motivated by his disability.; The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, specifically related to his performance and inability to meet job requirements.; The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith to explore reasonable accommodations for his disability.; The court found that the plaintiff's requested accommodations were unreasonable or would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer.; The court concluded that the plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the defendants' stated reasons for termination, thus failing to meet his burden of proof..
Q: Why is Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing important?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the burden on plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and to rebut legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by employers. It highlights the importance of the interactive process and the employer's defense of undue hardship in disability accommodation claims under Iowa law.
Q: What precedent does Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing set?
Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that his termination was motivated by his disability. (2) The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, specifically related to his performance and inability to meet job requirements. (3) The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith to explore reasonable accommodations for his disability. (4) The court found that the plaintiff's requested accommodations were unreasonable or would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer. (5) The court concluded that the plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the defendants' stated reasons for termination, thus failing to meet his burden of proof.
Q: What are the key holdings in Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
1. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because he did not present sufficient evidence to show that his termination was motivated by his disability. 2. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, specifically related to his performance and inability to meet job requirements. 3. The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendants failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith to explore reasonable accommodations for his disability. 4. The court found that the plaintiff's requested accommodations were unreasonable or would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer. 5. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not present evidence to rebut the defendants' stated reasons for termination, thus failing to meet his burden of proof.
Q: What cases are related to Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
Precedent cases cited or related to Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing: Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 651 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa 2002); Haskins v. Various Assocs., Inc., 381 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 1986).
Q: What does 'prima facie case' mean in a discrimination lawsuit?
A prima facie case means the plaintiff has presented enough initial evidence to suggest discrimination occurred. This shifts the burden to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their actions.
Q: Did Scott Hampe ask for a reasonable accommodation?
No, the court found that Scott Hampe did not request a reasonable accommodation. He informed his employer he could not perform an essential job function (driving) but did not propose specific solutions or accommodations.
Q: What are 'essential job functions'?
Essential job functions are the fundamental duties of a position. If an employee cannot perform these, even with accommodation, they may not be able to claim discrimination if terminated for that reason.
Q: Can an employer fire someone if they can't perform an essential job function due to a disability?
Generally, yes, if the function is truly essential and cannot be performed even with reasonable accommodation. However, the employer must engage in the interactive process and cannot use this as a pretext for discrimination.
Q: What is the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA)?
The ICRA is a state law that prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics like disability, race, religion, and sex within Iowa.
Q: What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
The ADA is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing affect me?
This case reinforces the burden on plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and to rebut legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by employers. It highlights the importance of the interactive process and the employer's defense of undue hardship in disability accommodation claims under Iowa law. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should an employee do if they have a disability affecting their job?
The employee should inform their employer about the disability and request specific, reasonable accommodations in writing. They should also try to understand if the requested accommodation allows them to perform essential job functions.
Q: What if my employer claims my inability to perform a task is a legitimate reason for firing me?
You would need to show that this reason is a 'pretext' – a false excuse to hide the real discriminatory motive. This often involves showing the employer's stated reason is untrue or inconsistent.
Q: How important is documentation in disability discrimination cases?
Documentation is crucial. This includes medical records, written requests for accommodation, employer responses, and performance reviews, all of which can support or refute claims of discrimination or pretext.
Q: Does the ADA require employers to change job duties?
The ADA requires reasonable accommodations, which might include modifying how a job is done, but it does not require employers to remove essential job functions.
Historical Context (1)
Q: When did the ADA become law?
The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing?
The docket number for Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing is 22-1599. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What happens after a court grants summary judgment?
Summary judgment means the case is decided without a full trial because there are no significant factual disputes. If granted for the defendant, the plaintiff's case is dismissed unless they successfully appeal.
Q: What is the standard of review on appeal for summary judgment?
Appellate courts review grants of summary judgment de novo, meaning they look at the case anew without giving deference to the lower court's decision, to ensure no legal errors were made.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 651 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa 2002)
- Haskins v. Various Assocs., Inc., 381 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 1986)
Case Details
| Case Name | Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing |
| Citation | |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-11 |
| Docket Number | 22-1599 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Significance | This case reinforces the burden on plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and to rebut legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by employers. It highlights the importance of the interactive process and the employer's defense of undue hardship in disability accommodation claims under Iowa law. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) disability discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) reasonable accommodation, Prima facie case of employment discrimination, Interactive process for reasonable accommodation, Undue hardship defense to accommodation requests, Summary judgment in employment law |
| Jurisdiction | ia |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Scott Hampe v. Charles Gabus Motors, Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Des Moines, and Gadimina Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Iowa Occupational Testing was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) disability discrimination or from the Iowa Supreme Court:
-
CMT Highway, LLC, an Iowa Limited Company v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc., an Iowa Corporation
Contractor Breached Agreement by Refusing to Deliver Asphalt at Contracted PriceIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Matthew Lewis Hunter v. City of Des Moines, Iowa; and Des Moines Police Bargaining Unit, Jane Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, and John Doe No. 5
Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Police in Excessive Force CaseIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Sarah Kingsbury v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa
Prior Injury Not Scheduled: Second Injury Fund Not Liable for Additional BenefitsIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Worthwhile Wind, LLC v. Worth County Board of Supervisors
Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Wind Farm Permit Denial for Lack of FindingsIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Auditor's Broad Investigative PowersIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Dr. Paul R. Gausman v. Sioux City Community School District, Daniel D. Greenwell, Jan George, Taylor Goodvin, and Bob Michaelson
Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment for School District in Defamation CaseIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller
Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Implied Consent Law Against Fourth Amendment ChallengeIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Timothy Kono v. D.R. Horton, Inc. and D.R. Horton-Iowa, LLC d/b/a Classic Builders
Homeowner's Breach of Contract and Fraud Claims Against Builder DismissedIowa Supreme Court · 2026-04-10