IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
KIRSTEN ANDERSON,

CASE NO.

LACL131321

Plaintiff,
vs.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POSTJUDGMENT RELIEF

THE STATE OF IOWA, THE IOWA
SENATE, AND THE IOWA SENATE
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS,
Defendants.
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff and for her Motion for Post-Judgment Relief,
states:
1.

On July 18, 2017, a jury of Iowans in Polk County, Des Moines,

Iowa, returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in the amounts of $1,400,000
for past emotional distress and $795,000 for future emotional distress for a
total verdict of $2,195,000.
2.

Pursuant to Iowa Code §216.16(6), the district court has the

authority to grant any relief the statute authorizes the Iowa Civil Rights
Commission (“the Commission”) to exercise under the Iowa Civil Rights Act
(ICRA).
3.

The ongoing illegal conduct that was exposed through Plaintiff’s

lawsuit has not, to date, been remedied. It is apparent that such conduct is
beyond the capacity and capability of current Senate Republican Caucus
members to supervise and correct.

1

 4.

Thus, this activity requires this court’s attention and supervision,

and Plaintiff requests that this court not only retain jurisdiction, but that it
order certain constructive, remedial measures, as further specified below, for a
period of no less than five (5) years.
5.

As an initial matter, the Commission’s broad remedial authority is

set forth in Iowa Code §216.15(9):
If upon taking into consideration all of the evidence at a hearing, the
commission determines that the respondent has engaged in a
discriminatory or unfair practice, the commission shall state its
findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall issue an order
requiring the respondent to cease and desist from the discriminatory
or unfair practice and to take the necessary remedial action as in
the judgment of the commission will carry out the purposes of this
chapter. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the respondent, the
complainant, and to any other public officers and persons as the
commission deems proper.
a. For the purposes of this subsection and pursuant to the provisions
of this chapter “remedial action” includes but is not limited to the
following:
(1) Hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of employees with or without
pay. Interim earned income and unemployment compensation shall
operate to reduce the pay otherwise allowable.
(2) Admission or restoration of individuals to a labor organization,
admission to or participation in a guidance program, apprenticeship
training program, on-the-job training program or other occupational
training or retraining program, with the utilization of objective
criteria in the admission of individuals to such programs.
(3) Admission of individuals to a public accommodation or an
educational institution.
(4) Sale, exchange, lease, rental, assignment or sublease of real
property to an individual.
(5) Extension to all individuals of the full and equal enjoyment of the
advantages, facilities, privileges, and services of the respondent
denied to the complainant because of the discriminatory or unfair
practice.
(6) Reporting as to the manner of compliance.
2

 (7) Posting notices in conspicuous places in the respondent’s place of
business in form prescribed by the commission and inclusion of
notices in advertising material.
(8) Payment to the complainant of damages for an injury caused by the
discriminatory or unfair practice which damages shall include but
are not limited to actual damages, court costs and reasonable
attorney fees.
(9) For an unfair or discriminatory practice relating to wage
discrimination pursuant to section 216.6A, payment to the
complainant of damages for an injury caused by the discriminatory
or unfair practice which damages shall include but are not limited
to court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and either of the following:
(a) An amount equal to two times the wage differential paid to another

employee compared to the complainant for the period of time for
which the complainant has been discriminated against.
(b) In instances of willful violation, an amount equal to three times the

wage differential paid to another employee as compared to the
complainant for the period of time for which the complainant has
been discriminated against.
6.

In this case, the jury’s determination was based on substantial and

detailed evidence of a hostile and discriminatory work environment testified
about at length, by multiple witnesses, and in detail regarding specific
examples of such ongoing behavior. That environment was not new, but had
been in place as long as the longest-working witness could remember.
7.

Indeed, Plaintiff Kirsten Anderson testified to an environment that

existed from the date she began employment with the Senate (Republican
Caucus Staff Office), such environment, including, but not being limited to:
pornography on government computers, referring to women as “cunts,” leering
at women, ogling women, “rating” women, talking about women’s bodies, talk
of women’s breasts, constant talk of sex (“tickle pickles”/”nooners,” etc.),
constant talk regarding people’s sex lives, discussion of women’s sexual
3

 past/preferences, and derogatory slang regarding African-Americans, gays, and
lesbians.
8.

On several occasions, the conduct was so troublesome that

Anderson felt she had to complain to her bosses over the objection of her
trusted colleague, Pam Dugdale.
9.

Dugdale testified that the culture was so saturated that she felt

there was nothing she could do, that it was not until 2010 when Anderson
insisted they go to their boss with information regarding the persistent use of
the “c” word, that she relented. Even after doing so, Dugdale feared retaliation
from the “boys club” and testified to her continued fear of reprisal.
10.

In addition to all of that, the environment subjected female

employees to regular exposure to sitting Senators engaging in similar behavior,
on the Senate floor no less, back-benching and leering at and ogling women,
talking about and joking about female lobbyists or even female, high-schoolaged pages. This conduct contributed to an environment that permitted, even
encouraged, the ugliest kind of behavior.
11.

Dugdale, the longest serving current member of the caucus staff,

corroborated Anderson’s account and added her own examples of incredibly
juvenile, boorish, and illegal workplace conduct that had persisted throughout
her career. That conduct included, on her first day of work, someone placing on
her computer screen-saver, a picture of a naked woman jumping up and down
on a trampoline to the tune of “Jingle Bells.”

4

 12.

Dugdale testified that Anderson’s account was true, and she gave

further examples of the testosterone gauntlet that the women working in the
Iowa Senate were forced to endure on an-ongoing basis. For example, Dugdale
testified about a sitting Senator (one-time Minority Leader Paul McKinley)
looking Dugdale up and down (at her chest) and commenting “nice sweater,”
and confirmed that a sitting Senator asked her the size of her areolas.
13.

Anderson’s former co-workers (Tom Ashworth, Josh Bronsink,

Russ Trimble, Gannon Hendrick, and Angie Hughes) also corroborated the
evidence of Anderson and Dugdale.
14.

Importantly, both Ashworth and Dugdale’s testimony was the most

telling, and each admitted to ongoing fear of retaliation for speaking out.
Ashworth referenced being personally retaliated against in the past. But even
the other three co-workers, who could be forgiven the very normal concern for
their job, corroborated the basic fact of the “locker room” atmosphere; Hughes,
another female co-worker of Anderson, specifically admitted the sex talk.
15.

We also know that Anderson made five—(2010 (Matthes), 2012

(Hodges), 2012 (Failor), 2012 (Marshall), 2013 (Johansen))—complaints
regarding inappropriate and hostile workplace conduct in which Dugdale joined
in three.
16.

Defendants attempted to hide behind the fact that Ed Failor, Jr.,

made inquiry into whether the kind of conduct he witnessed was unusual—
Anderson and Dugdale told him it was typical. This was after the State tried to

5

 sell the jury on the idea that because Failor asked the two staffers to his office,
they actually had not “complained” about inappropriate workplace conduct.
17.

Yet other than “talking to” the perpetrator of the conduct occurring

on December 13, 2012, Failor, Dix, Staff Director Eric Johansen, and Senate
Secretary Marshall did nothing to address a work environment polluted by
ugly, juvenile, hostile, and discriminatory behavior. This was the case even
though the Governor’s office had requested an investigation. There was no
investigation, there was no remediation, and there was not even any change
made to the outmoded, incomplete sexual harassment policy until months after
Anderson’s termination.
18.

The staffers testified that the attitude coming from Johansen,

Failor, and Dix was that the problem was solved—nothing to see here, please
move along—because Jim Friedrich had stopped his boorish behavior as a
result of the “she likes rhythm” incident and cursory follow-up. But they failed
to investigate the complaints about the atmosphere in general and the
complaints about some of the senators in particular.
19.

Moreover, while a biannual harassment training was instituted in

the Senate, it was not until months after Anderson’s discharge. Both Dugdale
and Failor agreed that the training program is pitiful and ineffective.
20.

The Defendants chose not to call one on the person ultimately

responsible for the then minority caucus and its staff: then Minority (now
Majority) Leader Bill Dix, who approved of the decision to discharge Anderson
from employment.
6

 21.

Dix’s only comments about the evidence, and ultimately the jury’s

verdict, is telling in several respects:
I am disappointed in the verdict announced this afternoon. Kirsten
Anderson was terminated only for her poor work product and absolutely
no other reason.
The environment prior to my leadership was
lacking in professionalism and appropriate behavior. Any issues that
arose during the trial, which had not previously been reported to a
supervisor, will be investigated and addressed immediately.
During my leadership of the Senate Republican Caucus, harassment
and inappropriate behavior was addressed immediately and
effectively and it will continue to be addressed in that manner in the
future. The Senate Republican Caucus is now a safe environment
and there is no tolerance for any and all types of harassment.
http://whotv.com/2017/07/18/verdict-reached-in-anderson-sexualharassment-trial/
22.

Dix’s view is an unapologetic rejection of the considered judgment

of eight impartial and unbiased Iowans who heard the evidence, explanations,
and excuses, and found the State’s version of events nothing but empty
platitudes. Even if one were to ignore the substantial evidence presented at
trial that calls into question the credibility of this press release, there are
additional reasons to disbelieve it circulating in the media. (See Six Hints Iowa
Senate Republicans Didn’t Fire Kirsten Anderson Over Work Product,
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/2017/07/25/six-hints-iowa-senaterepublicans-didnt-fire-kirsten-anderson-over-work-product/ (attached hereto
as Exhibit A).

7

 23.

If nothing else, Dix’s press release, in light of the trial and jury

verdict, demonstrates that further investigation and training within the Senate
Republican Caucus is necessary. Leadership cannot be trusted to remedy a
problem it refuses to acknowledge exists.
24.

This is not a typical case and no simple solution presents itself to

the problems Anderson’s trial cast a spotlight on. Most governmental
employers have robust human resource departments, with employees trained
and experienced in the workplace investigations and who are able to provide
supervisors with objective advice on how to best handle tough employment
situations like sexual harassment investigations.
25.

Here, the legislature does not have a robust human resources

department. Instead, the legislature ostensibly relies on individuals like the
Secretary of the Senate to investigate complaints, which, as seen from trial,
failed to offer Anderson any protection. Even with the best of intent, if that
were the case, the State has not offered its resources to the Senate Republican
Caucus to address ongoing, patent wrongs. If this lawsuit must be the impetus
for a reallocation of resources, then so be it.
26.

Therefore, it is up to the court to make sure not just that there is

accountability for the damage done but also to protect other innocent people,
employees, guests of the Senate, lobbyists, colleagues, and members of the
staff office from illegal and hostile conduct but also from retaliation for
standing up to the kind of behavior which was the subject of a lot of testimony
in this case.
8

 27.

Therefore, and based on all of the foregoing, Plaintiff Kirsten

Anderson specifically requests the following equitable relief as part of the
court’s equitable powers and jurisdiction following the trial and jury verdict in
this case.
a.

The court order the State Senate Republic Caucus, both
sitting senators, and staff, to immediately cease and desist all
harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory behavior that is
based on sex, race, national origin, sexual orientation, or any
other protected basis;

b.

The court order the hiring and retention of an outside
consultant qualified and recognized in the field of
investigating harassment, retaliation, and claims of
discrimination who shall conduct a full and complete
investigation of all complaints and issues raised in this
lawsuit and the trial of this matter and report their
conclusions to the court and the panel discussed in paragraph
(g) below.

c.

The court order the hiring and retention of an outside
consultant qualified to assist and recognized in the field of
studying dysfunctional and hostile workplaces and who is
able to identify the sources underlying the kind of behavior
leading to the judgment in this case, including but not limited
to, sexually hostile and discriminatory workplaces, and who
can provide his or her feedback and recommendations to the
panel discussed in paragraph (g) below.

d.

The court order the hiring and retention of an outside
consultant qualified to assist and recognized in the field of
creating, drafting, and adopting of policies intended to help
employers maintain safe, discrimination-free, harassmentfree, and retaliation-free workplaces, for the purposes of
evaluating the current policy and drafting and adopting
changes to the current policy.

e.

The court order the hiring and retention of an outside
consultant qualified to assist and recognized in the field of
designing and implementing a training program based on
well-drafted policies in place to protect employees from
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. (Any such
consultant must be the kind of qualified expert who will be
9

 able to design and implement a training program that men
will not treat as fraternity jokes).

28.

f.

The court order the hiring and retention of an outside
consultant qualified and recognized in the field of the training
and protection of employees from retaliation for engaging in
protected activity. Such a consultant should be given the
mandate of training supervisory staff why such policies are
vital, and the kinds of policies that can be adopted to provide
such protection.

g.

The court order the appointment of a panel of five individuals
in the community who have no interest in the litigation but
who have expertise in fields such as human resources,
industrial psychology, psychology, and/or discrimination law
who will advise the court as the court deems necessary to
carry out the functions of the equitable relief. The panel shall
be consulted on all aspects of the court’s order on equitable
relief for the purposes of giving the court guidance on the
process the court requires the State to follow.

h.

That the court maintain jurisdiction of this matter for a period
of five (5) years for these purposes, with the power not only to
appoint the panel, but to mandate regular reports from the
consultants the court approves as well as regular reporting by
the Iowa Senate and also the Republican Caucus regarding
how each is carrying out and meeting the objectives set out
for them by the court, the consultants, based on their
findings, and based on the recommendations of the panel
referred to in paragraph (f).

i.

The court order that no adverse action may be taken against
any current employee of the Senate who testified in the case
or who supports on an ongoing basis the need for change.

j.

The court order the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus shall post
a copy of the Court’s order on equitable relief on the first page,
prominently displayed, on the Caucus’ main webpage, and
leave it so posted for as long as this Court maintains
jurisdiction of the equitable-relief order.

Plaintiff Kirsten Anderson specifically requests this relief as part of

the court’s delegated authority under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, all to be
ordered at the expense of the State of Iowa.
10

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kirsten Anderson requests a hearing date be set
on this motion, that the court order the relief requested in more detail above,
and for any and all other relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,
__/s/ Michael J. Carroll_________________
MICHAEL J. CARROLL - AT0001311
RICHARD O. MCCONVILLE – AT0005124
MEGAN FLYNN – AT0010000
COPPOLA, MCCONVILLE, COPPOLA,
CARROLL, HOCKENBERG, & SCALISE,
P.C.
2100 Westown Parkway, Suite 210
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Telephone: (515) 453-1055
Facsimile: (515) 453-1059
Email: Michael@csmclaw.com
Megan@csmclaw.com
Copy via EDMS to:
Jeffrey S. Thompson (AT0009692)
Solicitor General
William R. Pearson (AT0012070)
Molly M. Weber (AT0008313)
Assistant Attorneys General
Department of Justice-Special Litigation
Hoover State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 242-6773 / Fax: (515) 281-4902
Jeffrey.Thompson@iowa.gov
William.Pearson@iowa.gov
Molly.Weber@iowa.gov
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

11