ST. LOUIS — The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal of a Lincoln University discrimination case, reinstating claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment.
In the ruling, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by former Lincoln University Human Resources Director Jim Marcantonio, allowing his claims of racial and age discrimination, as well as retaliation, to proceed to trial, according to the opinion filed Oct. 1.
The decision was handed down by Division One of the Court of Appeals, which includes Presiding Judge Lisa White Hardwick, Judge Alok Ahuja and Chief Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert.
Marcantonio, a white man over the age of 60, served as HR Director at Lincoln University from October 2000 until his resignation in October 2018.
He filed a lawsuit against the university in Cole Circuit Court, alleging that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment, discriminated against due to his race and age and constructively discharged in retaliation for raising concerns about these issues.
At the trial level, after four days of testimony, the circuit court granted Lincoln University's motion for a directed verdict, effectively dismissing Marcantonio's claims without allowing the jury to deliberate. Marcantonio appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Marcantonio had provided sufficient evidence to warrant a jury trial on his claims.
While Marcantonio did not present evidence of vulgar, offensive or threatening comments that are often associated with hostile work environment claims, he did provide evidence that his working conditions had changed significantly, which, according to the court, could constitute a hostile work environment.
Key to the court's decision was testimony about a series of adverse employment actions that altered the terms and conditions of Marcantonio's job.
These included the creation of a Title IX Coordinator position in August 2018, which took over some of his responsibilities.
This new position, with a relatively high salary, came at a time when the university had claimed it lacked funds to fill vacancies in Marcantonio’s department or compensate him for taking on additional duties.
The court found that statements made by the university’s chief diversity officer that there were “too many White people” at the institution could not be excluded from the trial.
These comments, although not made directly by those who made employment decisions about Marcantonio, were deemed particularly relevant due to the chief diversity officer's role in implementing the university’s equal employment policies.
The officer’s involvement in approving personnel hires and compensation changes further underscored the potential impact of these race-based statements.
Marcantonio also provided substantial evidence suggesting that his race and age were contributing factors to the alleged hostile work environment.
In his lawsuit, Marcantonio argued that the university favored African-American employees in terms of promotions and compensation, while white employees like himself were disproportionately disadvantaged.
The court found that this evidence, alongside claims of race-based hiring practices by university leadership, bolstered Marcantonio’s case.
The court also cited comments from Marcantonio’s supervisor as evidence of potential age discrimination.
His supervisor allegedly remarked that Marcantonio needed to recruit “younger people” and suggested he had a "defeatist attitude" due to his approaching retirement.
The court ruled that this, combined with other evidence of pretext, supported the claim that age discrimination played a role in the hostile work environment.
In addition to the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, the Court of Appeals also determined that Marcantonio had provided enough evidence for a jury to consider his claim of constructive discharge.
The court found that Marcantonio presented evidence that his working conditions over some time could be seen as objectively intolerable, warranting further legal scrutiny.
The appellate court's decision to reverse and remand the case for further proceedings gives Marcantonio another opportunity to present his case to a jury.
The appellant was represented by Martin M. Meyers, Heather J. Hardinger and Randall O. Barnes.
The respondent is represented by Ian P. Cooper, Mollie G. Mohan and Veronica E. Potter.
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District, Division One case number: WD86224