KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission in a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee.
Perry Allen, a former assistant district engineer for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), had raised six points of appeal after the Jackson County Circuit Court ruled against him, according to the March 4 opinion.
The appellate court found no merit in Allen’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
In the first four points of appeal, Allen contended that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment on his discrimination and retaliation claims.
He argued that the court relied too heavily on his own admission that C.R., the official who authored his termination letter, did not personally discriminate against him.
Allen maintained that C.R. was not the sole decision-maker in his firing and that discrimination by other officials should be imputed to C.R. The appellate court rejected this argument, emphasizing that C.R. was the only individual with the authority to terminate employees in MoDOT’s Kansas City district.
Allen also challenged the court’s decision on his hostile work environment claim, asserting that the Commission failed to prove an absence of severe or pervasive harassment. He further argued that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies should not have barred his claims, citing the continuing violation theory.
The appellate court found these arguments unpersuasive and upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Allen, a white male over the age of forty, began his career at MoDOT in 1991.
His legal battle stemmed from several workplace incidents, including a 2015 interview with M.V., MoDOT’s audits and investigations director, during which Allen felt he was subjected to discriminatory treatment. However, he did not report this incident as discrimination at the time.
Tensions in the workplace escalated in 2020 when D.H., MoDOT’s human resources manager for the Kansas City district, confronted Allen over a disagreement.
According to Allen, D.H. became agitated, shouted at him, slapped the back of his chair, and made comments implying he would not question her actions if she were not a Black woman. Allen did not immediately report this incident to MoDOT’s central human resources division but later brought it to the attention of his supervisor.
Allen was placed on disciplinary probation in 2019, a measure he acknowledged was not related to discrimination or retaliation.
In 2021, he was terminated by C.R., the district engineer, following an investigation that found Allen had sent inappropriate text messages using a work-issued phone. Allen later sought to challenge his termination, alleging that his firing was the result of discrimination and retaliation influenced by D.H. and M.V.
The appellate court determined that Allen failed to provide evidence showing that his termination was influenced by discriminatory motives.
While Allen pointed to the involvement of D.H. and M.V. in his work environment, the court found no proof that C.R. had consulted them before making the termination decision.
Allen also attempted to draw comparisons to previous court rulings where multiple decision-makers influenced an employee’s termination. However, the court rejected these comparisons, noting that Allen lacked evidence demonstrating that MoDOT’s internal processes involved the same kind of review structure as in those cases.
Furthermore, Allen did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the stated reason for his termination—misuse of a work-issued phone—was pretextual.
Under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the court found that the Commission provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Allen’s firing.
Because Allen did not present adequate evidence to suggest this rationale was a mere pretext for discrimination, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment.
With the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision, Allen has exhausted his current legal recourse within the state court system. The ruling underscores the importance of providing clear and direct evidence when alleging workplace discrimination and retaliation.
David Lunceford, Victoria Arends and Christina Nielsen, represented the appellant.
Michael Polwort, Melinda Grace-Beasley, Kimberly Jones and Terri Parker represented the respondents.
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87287