ST. LOUIS — A panel of judges for the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District affirmed summary judgment in favor of Missouri American Water Co. on claims of retaliation and workers' compensation retaliation.
The panel reversed the summary judgment on the plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims, remanding these for further proceedings.
Judge Robert M. Clayton III authored the majority opinion. Judge Philip M. Hess concurred. Judge Cristian M. Stevens dissented and authored a dissenting opinion.
The case involved James Raymond King appealing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Missouri American Water Co. regarding claims of disability discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and workers' compensation retaliation. The appeals court affirmed parts of the trial court's decision and reversed and remanded others, according to the June 4 decision.
King worked for MAWC from April 1998 until his termination in February 2018. He served in the Illinois National Guard and was deployed to Afghanistan, during which time he developed PTSD.
In 2016, upon recommendation from his counselor, he requested and received approval for a service dog to assist with his PTSD.
Post-approval, the plaintiff alleged experiencing a hostile work environment. His supervisor made derogatory comments about his disability, excluded him from events and denied his accommodation requests, the decision states.
In December 2017, a disputed incident occurred between the plaintiff and his supervisor, leading to the plaintiff’s suspension and subsequent termination. The supervisor alleged the plaintiff followed her aggressively; the plaintiff contended he merely tried to get her attention and intended to buy her coffee.
The plaintiff filed claims against his former employer for disability discrimination, a hostile work environment, MHRA retaliation and workers’ compensation retaliation. MAWC moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was not legally disabled under the MHRA, and his termination was justified by non-discriminatory reasons.
The trial court granted summary judgment to MAWC on all claims, concluding that the plaintiff was not legally disabled under the MHRA due to judicial estoppel and that MAWC’s reason for termination was legitimate and non-discriminatory. It also found that no causal link existed between the plaintiff's discrimination complaints and his termination and no evidence showed a connection between the plaintiff’s work-related injury reports and his termination. The appeal followed.
The appeals court conducted a de novo review, examining if genuine issues of material fact existed and viewing evidence in the plaintiff's favor.
The court found issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim and ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.
The court then identified genuine issues of material fact concerning the hostile work environment claim and also reversed this claim.
The court, however, upheld the trial court’s summary judgment on the retaliation claim, noting the plaintiff failed to prove a causal link between his complaints and termination.
The dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority's reversal of the circuit court's summary judgment on the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim under the MHRA.
Stevens argues that the plaintiff's statements in his Social Security disability applications, claiming total disability and inability to work, contradict his MHRA claim that his PTSD does not hinder his job performance.
The inconsistent statements justify the application of judicial estoppel, preventing the plaintiff from making contradictory claims in different proceedings. The circuit court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion, and MAWC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, supporting the summary judgment against the plaintiff.
Attorneys for the appellant did not return requests for comment. Attorneys for the respondent could not comment on the matter yet.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, Division One case number: ED111783