Are the following answers submitted to the case study correct?

Case Name: Jasper ve. MNizam, Inc Which court 1s making this decision? - Supreme court of Towa Who 1z the Plaintiff? Who 1z the Defendant? -EIMBEELY 5. JASPER - NIZAM. INC Who did what to whom? * Jasper was terminated from her employment at Kid University * Nizam wanted to reduce staff, even though that would be against the law because of staff to child ratios * Nizam fired Jasper * Jasper brought a wrongful termination suit against both Nizam and the corporation What relief (claim) was sought by the plaintiff in the lower court? - She claimed that her firing was based on her refusal to violate the staff-children ratio and that such a termination was a violation of public policy. What was the lower court's decision? And, if applicable, the Court of Appeals decision? - The court determined the damages for emotional distress of $100,000 were excessive and reduced the award to $20,000. The court of appeals then determined the district court did not err in finding the $100,000 award for emotional distress was excessive and in setting aside the award of $39.507.25 for additional services and housing expenses. Who prevailed in the lower court(s)? - Jasper What 15 the specific legal question, based on what facts, is this court being asked to address? - Was there tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy? What law(s) and specifically, which legal element(s) 1s (are) at 1ssue? - PublicPolicy Exception to EmploymentatWill Doctrine. These elements are: (1) existence of a clearly defined public policy that protects employee activity. (2) the public policy would be jeopardized by the discharge from employment. (3) the employee engaged in the protected activity, and this conduct was the reason for the employee's discharge. (4) there was no overniding business justification for the termination. What 15 the court's reason (interpretation) for the application of, change in, or exception to the law? -It determined damages relating to the rental house and unreimbursed expenses were independent of the wrongful- termination-of-employment action and could not be recovered under the claim. What had to be proven by the plaintiff and was the burden met? Plaintiff must prove: (1) The existence of a clearly defined public policy that protects an activity. (2) This policy would be undermined by a discharge from employment. (3) The challenged discharge was the result of participating in the protected activity. (4) There was lack of other justification for the termination. - Burden was not met What had to be proven by Defendant and was the burden met? - It was to be _proven that the termination did not fall under one of the exceptions. - Burden was met - Thev did not violate \"well-recognized and clearly defined public policy.\" What did the court decide on the legal question? - A conditional new trial 15 awarded and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jasper should be allowed to avoid a new trial by agreeing to reduce the award for emotional distress from $ 100,000 to 8 20,000. In the event that reduction 1s agreed to, interest on the remaining award shall be computed as provided in the original judgment What 15 this court's order? - Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and case remanded. Will plamntiff's claim in the lower court be: granted, allowed to proceed, or be denied? - Denied Who prevailed in this court? - Nizam