Ashley Hall and Ryan Hall, on behalf of minor child A.H. v. Southeast Polk Junior High school – Southeast Polk Community School District, Dirk Halupnik, Joseph Horton, Michael Dailey, Jacob Bartels, and Georgia Casner, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast Polk Community School District

• Court: Supreme Court of Iowa
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-1352
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Iowa Supreme Court

No. 24–1352

Submitted September 10, 2025—Filed November 14, 2025

Ashley Hall and Ryan Hall, on behalf of minor child A.H.,

Appellees,

vs.

Southeast Polk Junior High School–Southeast Polk Community School District, Dirk Halupnik, Joseph Horton, Michael Dailey, Jacob Bartels, and Georgia Casner, individually and in their official capacities with Southeast Polk Community School District,

Appellants.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,

judge.

The defendants appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss certain chapter

216 and common law claims on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to meet the

pleading requirements of Iowa Code section 670.4A. Appeal Dismissed and

Case Remanded.

Per curiam.

Lindsay A. Vaught and Samuel A. McMichael of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C.,

Des Moines, for appellants.

Christopher Stewart and Marrissa Pasker of Boles Witosky Stewart Law

PLLC, Des Moines, for appellees. 2

This appeal is substantially similar to the one we decided today in Fogle &

Fogle ex rel. P.F. v. Clay Elementary School–Southeast Polk Community School

District, ___ N.W.3d ___ (Iowa 2025). We are asked to decide whether the Iowa

Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA) and its qualified immunity pleading standard,

Iowa Code § 670.4A(3) (2022), apply to claims against a municipality brought

under Iowa Code chapter 216, the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). As we explained

in Fogle, ICRA claims against a school district and its employees are not “brought

under” the IMTCA and, as such, are not subject to its heightened pleading

requirements. ___ N.W.3d at ___. Additionally, as we held in Fogle, the IMTCA’s

heightened pleading standard does not apply to the common law tort claims in

this appeal. Id. at ___. The district court properly denied the defendants’ motion

to dismiss.

I.

Ashley and Ryan Hall, on behalf of their minor child A.H., filed suit against

Southeast Polk Junior High School–Southeast Polk Community School District

and several of its employees based on the alleged bullying, discrimination,

harassment, and physical abuse that A.H. faced as a seventh-grade student

during the 2022–2023 school year. A.H. has an Individual Education Plan (IEP)

because she experiences ADHD and anxiety. The Halls allege that the defendants

knowingly failed to accommodate A.H. under the terms of her IEP. They also

allege that A.H.’s seventh-grade teacher, Georgia Casner, discriminated against

A.H. on two occasions based on A.H.’s disability and her sex as a female. Finally,

the Halls allege that A.H. faced unrelenting verbal and physical abuse from other

students at the school, which the defendants knew about but failed to prevent

despite receiving numerous complaints from the Halls. 3

The Halls followed the procedural requirements of the ICRA and received

a right-to-sue letter from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. See generally Iowa

Code §§ 216.15–16. The Halls then filed a ten-count amended petition in the

Iowa District Court for Polk County on April 30, 2024. As relevant for this appeal,

the Halls asserted four claims under the ICRA and two common law tort claims.

The ICRA claims under Iowa Code § 216.9 were asserted against the school

district for disability discrimination with respect to education (count II), sex

discrimination with respect to education (count III), and sex and disability

harassment with respect to education (count IV). The Halls also asserted an ICRA

claim under Iowa Code § 216.11 for aiding and abetting education discrimination

(count VI) against Southeast Polk superintendent Dirk Halupnik, associate

superintendent Joseph Horton, Southeast Polk Junior High School principal

Michael Dailey, assistant principal Jacob Bartels, and junior high teacher

Georgia Casner. The Halls further asserted common law tort claims against all

defendants, including as relevant here, claims for breach of fiduciary duty (count

VII) and negligence (count VIII).

II.

The defendants moved to dismiss some of the Halls’ claims in their

entirety.1 The defendants argued that counts II–IV and VI, all ICRA claims, failed

to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the IMTCA. See Iowa Code

§ 670.4A(3) (requiring a petition for a claim “brought under” the IMTCA to plead

a violation of clearly established law with particularity and plausibility). The

1The district court granted the motion with respect to two counts. It dismissed count I, a

claim for bullying in violation of Iowa Code § 280.28, on the basis that the statute did not imply a private cause of action. It also dismissed count IX, a common law claim for negligent training and supervision, on the basis that the petition failed to meet the heightened pleading standards under Iowa Code § 670.4A. See id. § 670.4A(3) (requiring dismissal with prejudice if the heightened pleading standard is not met). The ruling on those claims is not part of this appeal brought by the defendants. 4

district court ruled that the IMTCA’s heightened pleading standard does not

apply to ICRA claims against a municipality and denied the defendants’ motion

as to those claims. For the reasons set forth in Fogle, the district court was

correct in that ruling. See ___ N.W.3d at ___.

The defendants also argue on appeal that the breach of fiduciary duty and

negligence claims (counts VII and VIII) against Halupnik and Casner must be

dismissed for failing to meet the IMTCA’s heightened pleading standard. As we

said in Fogle, however, the heightened pleading standard does not apply to

common law tort claims against a municipality. Id. at ___. The district court

properly denied dismissal of the Halls’ breach of fiduciary duty and negligence

claims as asserted against Halupnik and Casner.

III.

The defendants appealed as a matter of right under section 670.4A. As we

explained in Fogle, if section 670.4A does not apply to a claim, then subsection

(4) does not authorize an appeal as a matter of right. Id. at ___. For these reasons,

we dismiss the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings.

Appeal Dismissed and Case Remanded.

This opinion shall not be published.