Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

Rosales v. Iowa Department of Education et al

Court:
Southern District of Iowa
Subject Matter:
Civil Rights
  • Rosales v. Iowa Department of Education et al
    Rosales v. Iowa Department of Education et al
    Rosales v. Iowa Department of Education et al, Case Number 13-cv-00457, Motion to Dismiss- Civil Rights case, 2/3/2014, 10:30 am (CST), Des Moines U.S. Courthouse, Des Moines, IA, Judge Charles R. Wolle presiding.

    Rosales v. Iowa Department of Education et al, Case Number 13-cv-00457, Motion to Dismiss- Civil Rights case, 2/3/2014, 10...

Case Summary: 13-cv-00457

Plaintiff Norma Rosales filed this action against her former employer, Indian Hills Community College (Indian Hills), its board, and various employees of the college. Plaintiff also named the Iowa Department of Education (Department), its Director, and the Governor of Iowa as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants, using power granted to them by the State of Iowa, acted to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional and statutory rights.

Plaintiff served as Coordinator of the Regional Multicultural Center for Indian Hills for seven years. Near the end of her term, the complaint alleges that Indian Hills created a hostile work environment with the intention of forcing Plaintiff to resign. Indian Hills also created a new position that, according to the complaint, had essentially the same duties and job description as Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff applied for the job, but a male job applicant was hired instead. Plaintiff eventually resigned from her position.

The Governor, the Department, and its Director moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege any wrongdoing by them and, alternatively, that federal statute and the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution bar Plaintiff from pursuing her claims. Plaintiff amended her complaint, removing the Governor and Director, but resisted dismissal of the Department. Plaintiff argued that the Department had consented to be sued in writing and was responsible for the actions of the other named defendants.

This video shows the February 3, 2014 hearing on the Department’s Motion to Dismiss. Later that day, the court granted the motion and removed the Department from the case. The action continues against the other named defendants.

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 10/29/2013 (Doc #1)
  • Motion to Dismiss filed 12/10/2013 (Doc #21)
  • Amended Complaint filed 12/31/2013 (Doc #25)
  • Hearing held on Motion to Dismiss 2/03/2014 (Doc #31)
  • Order entered in favor of Defendants 2/03/2014 (Doc #32)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.