Owens v. Kraft Heinz: Davenport commissioners hear public statements, enter closed session on contested case

The Davenport City Civil Rights Commission on Jan. 14 heard public statements in contested case E00930048‑17, a long‑running employment discrimination complaint filed by Charles Owens against Kraft Heinz, and then voted unanimously to enter a closed session under Iowa Code §21.5(1)(f) and chapter 17A of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act to consider the decision.

Respondent counsel, introduced in the meeting as Jesse Dilla of Ogletree Deakins, asked the commission to adopt the administrative law judge’s recommended decision. “After all that evidence was collected and considered by the administrative law judge, I think he rightfully determined that this is a case where there just was not evidence of a discriminatory animus,” counsel told commissioners, summarizing the company’s view that witnesses and exhibits did not show unlawful discrimination.

Complainant Charles Owens appeared in person and told commissioners he had worked at Kraft Heinz for 27 years and that he was wrongfully terminated. Owens said he photographed an attendance posting on May 18, 2017 showing 11.5 points and argued the company misapplied the employer’s points‑drop policy and did not provide him a last‑chance agreement or adequate notice to return to work. “I was wrongfully terminated,” Owens said during his remarks, describing the time away from work as traumatic and saying he did not obtain comparable employment until 2018.

Counsel for Kraft Heinz disputed Owens’s account of notice and the existence of a signed last‑chance agreement, saying the record showed the union — as the certified collective bargaining representative — was the proper contact for negotiating return‑to‑work terms and that a union steward’s statements could not be attributed to company decision‑makers. Counsel also acknowledged gaps in the record related to how certain attendance points were calculated but argued that any calculation error did not, on the record before the administrative law judge, demonstrate discriminatory animus.

The commission’s staff advised commissioners that the complainant had submitted exceptions to the recommended decision by email and that the respondent’s attorney had requested the chance to make a statement to the commission at the public hearing. Commissioners then made and seconded a motion to move into closed session to discuss the contested case and to deliberate a decision in accordance with Iowa Code §21.5(1)(f) and chapter 17A; the motion carried on a roll call of five “yes” votes.

No final decision was announced at the public meeting. Staff told attendees a written decision would be issued following the closed‑session deliberations.

Clarifying details recorded at the hearing included the contested‑case file number (E00930048‑17), that the case had been investigated and reached hearing in 2024 after evidence was taken over several days, and that the complainant alleged improper application of Kraft Heinz’s points‑based attendance policy and a failure to be afforded the last‑chance process as described in employer documents and union negotiations.