Godfrey v. State of Iowa centers on Christopher Godfrey, the former Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, whose salary became the focus of a long-running dispute. In 2011, shortly after Governor Terry Branstad returned to office, Godfrey, whose position carried a six-year fixed term and protection from political influence, was asked to resign. When he refused, his annual salary was reduced by more than one-third, from $112,070 to $73,250.
Godfrey alleged that this salary reduction was a targeted retaliation linked to bias and political pressure. He maintained that despite his role as a state officer, he was entitled to the same employment protections as other public employees. Branstad and his administration argued that the pay adjustment fell within the governor’s discretion and denied any discriminatory intent.
The dispute eventually led to a jury trial, which concluded that the salary reduction and subsequent treatment violated Godfrey’s constitutional rights and state anti-discrimination protections. The jury awarded Godfrey a total of $1.5 million, including damages for emotional distress and harm caused by the improper pay cut.
Lessons Learned from the Case:
- Salary actions can be retaliation. Even lawful tools like setting pay scales can become unlawful if used to punish protected conduct or characteristics.
- Public roles do not lose protections. State officers with fixed terms are still shielded from discrimination and harassment under state law.
- Pressure to resign is coercive. Forcing or coercing resignation through pay reduction or intimidation can violate constitutional and employment protections.
If you want to know more about salaried employee rights, read our guide on What are my rights as a salaried employee in Iowa?
