ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals recently upheld trial court decisions in two separate but similar cases involving claims of race and age discrimination against St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) filed by former employees
Robert Horton and Danielle Deloatch alleged discriminatory treatment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) after their terminations in 2022, according to court opinions filed Oct. 22 in the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District.
Despite their claims, the courts dismissed their cases without prejudice, pointing to procedural issues that ultimately hindered their ability to pursue further legal action.
Horton, a former procurement director for SLPS, filed his discrimination claim after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in February 2023.
In October 2023, the trial court dismissed Horton’s claim without prejudice, citing procedural deficiencies in his petition.
Horton’s attempt to appeal argued that the dismissal effectively acted as a dismissal with prejudice due to MHRA’s strict ninety-day statute of limitations on such claims, which would prevent him from refiling.
Horton argued that the trial court mistakenly applied Missouri Rule 55.22(a) by requiring him to attach his initial charge of discrimination as a "written instrument," an issue he had not sufficiently raised in the trial court.
The appellate court declined to consider this argument on appeal, noting that it was not substantively addressed at the trial level.
In his second appeal point, Horton argued that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to amend his petition to include the required documentation was unjust. He maintained that this denial prevented him from pursuing his discrimination claim due to the statute of limitations.
The appellate court found that Horton had nearly seven months to amend his petition before the October dismissal but failed to act within this timeframe.
Deloatch, a former assistant principal with SLPS, experienced a similar legal trajectory.
Following her termination in April 2022, Deloatch filed a discrimination complaint nearly a year later, in April 2023.
SLPS sought to dismiss her claim, asserting that it lacked sufficient legal grounds, and the trial court agreed, dismissing her case without prejudice in October 2023.
Deloatch attempted to amend her complaint and vacate the dismissal, arguing that the limitations period barred her from refiling and thus the dismissal operated as one with prejudice. Her request was denied in December 2023.
On appeal, Deloatch contended that her discrimination charge was not a "written instrument" under Rule 55.22(a) and thus should not have been required as an attachment to her petition.
However, similar to Horton’s case, the appellate court found this issue ineligible for review, as Deloatch had not sufficiently raised it at the trial court level.
Deloatch’s second argument was that the trial court’s denial of her amendment request unfairly precluded her from further legal recourse.
The appellate court noted that Deloatch had approximately five months to amend her petition before dismissal but failed to act in a timely manner.
She also did not address potential hardship or injustice at the trial level.
The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in both cases, upholding the dismissals and denying the plaintiffs’ motions to amend.
The appellants were represented by Larry S. Fields.
The respondent was represented by Vincent D. Reese and Jasmine Y. McCormick.
Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District case number: ED112318, ED112312