Harrison v. Employment Appeal Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding no substantial compliance where required notice was given to employee orally rather than by certified mail as required by statute since oral notice did not impress upon employee importance of matter as contemplated by statute
• noting a written notice sent by certified mail conveys the importance of the message and the need for deliberate reflection
• noting a written notice sent by certified mail conveys the importance of the message and the need for deliberate reflection
• discussing strict versus substantial compliance under section 730.5 and noting the definitions of “must” and “shall” defined in Iowa Code section 4.1(30)
• giving no deference to Employment Appeal Board’s interpretation of workplace drug testing law
• stating it would be contrary to the spirit of Iowa’s drug-testing law if the court were to allow employers to ignore the protections afforded by the Act, but gain the advantage of using a drug test that did not comport with the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).