Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Verdict in Human Rights Act Age Discrimination Case

Glenda Claus started working as a room attendant at the Park Place Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1984. In 2006, the head of housekeeping promoted Ms. Claus to housekeeping supervisor. On December 7, 2007, Ms. Claus was fired. She was 63 years old at the time. Ms. Claus filed a Charge of Discrimination against her employer and supervisor with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and, subsequently, filed suit claiming that the hotel and her supervisor discriminated against her based upon her age. Ms. Claus sought actual and punitive damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act.

A jury ultimately awarded Ms. Claus $50,000.00 in compensatory damages and $150,000.00 in punitive damages and the hotel appealed. Affirming the jury verdict, the reviewing court found that the jury could more than reasonably have rejected the hotel's claims that Ms. Claus was fired for performance deficiencies given (1) the hotel's failure to allege any performance deficiencies until after Ms. Claus filed her discrimination claim, (2) Ms. Claus' record of positive job performance evaluations and lack of "write-ups," and (3) the hotel's failure to warn Ms. Claus about deficiencies in her performance despite regularly "writing-up" other employees. The court was particularly troubled that the retained house keeping supervisor, who was in her thirties, had been written up multiple times for excessive absences.

Regarding the punitive damages award, the reviewing court noted that the jury had before it evidence that Ms. Claus' supervisor had an extensive knowledge of employment law and had engaged in consulting work in human resources. The supervisor also had also trained small to medium sized businesses in employment law and assisted other employers with drafting their antidiscrimination policies. Moreover, Ms. Claus' supervisor and the hotel's owner both testified that they knew it was against the law to fire an employee because of an employee's age.

Finally, the appellate court determined that Ms. Claus was entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the Missouri Human Rights Act and remanded the case to the trial court for an award of fees and costs.

Claus v. Intrigue Hotels, LLC, No. WD 71927 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 28, 2010).

Employee Terminated After Disclosing Cancer Diagnosis Survives Employer’s Motion to Dismiss

Wava A. Gunderson was employed by St. Louis Connectcare as a claims adjudicator in January of 2006 when she was diagnosed with cancer. Ms. Gunderson was terminated in July of 2006. In her recently filed lawsuit, Ms. Gunderson claims that when she notified her employer of the diagnosis, she was advised that she should resign. Ms. Gunderson further alleges that she refused to resign because she was able to perform her job with reasonable accommodations.

In response to Ms. Gunderson’s lawsuit, Connectcare filed a motion to dismiss. Connectcare argued that Ms. Gunderson’s claims under the Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”) sections 502 and 510 failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The court agreed with Connectcare that Ms. Gunderson failed to state a claim under ERISA section 502 because that section provides remedies only against a defendant who has failed to comply with the terms of a benefits plan. The court recognized that Ms. Gunderson was not claiming in her lawsuit that Connectcare interfered with her ability to become eligible for further benefits, did not specify any particular benefits that were purportedly denied, and dismissed her claim under section 502.

However, the court held that Ms. Gunderson’s allegations that she was a participant under the terms of an employee benefit plan provided by the employer, and that she was fired for exercising her rights under that plan, properly pled all the elements of a claim under ERISA section 510. Although the court allowed Ms. Gunderson’s section 510 claim to proceed, it struck her claim for punitive damages finding that ERISA does not authorize the award of punitive damages.

Gunderson v. St. Louis Connectcare, No. 4:08CV01553 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 26, 2009).

Plaintiff in Sexual Harassment Case Entitled to $3.75 Million in Punitive Damages

Kendra Lynn worked as an assembly line scanner for TNT at its Kansas City automobile parts warehouse. In August 2003, Michael Gill was hired as a supervisor for Lynn's shift. Beginning in October 2003, Gill made a number of sexually charged and otherwise inappropriate comments to Lynn. For example, when passing out paychecks, Gill told Lynn she was not going to get paid "until you bounce your ass." While passing her workstation, Gill commented on Lynn’s anatomy and made offensive remarks about his own anatomy and his plans for performing sex acts on her. Another supervisor witnessed Gill "dancing provocatively" behind Lynn while she worked at her station, and reported Gill's actions to a superior.

In late October 2003, in front of another supervisor, Gill hit Lynn on the buttocks with a belt and told her to "get your fat ass out of here." The supervisor who witnessed the incident reported it to his immediate superior, who later denied he was given the information.

Lynn complained about Gill's behavior to another shift supervisor. Her complaints were forwarded to the facility manager. When the facility manger failed to take any action, Lynn transferred to another shift to avoid Gill. After she was terminated, Lynn sued TNT alleging sexual harassment and wrongful termination. After a five day trial, the jury returned a verdict for Lynn on her sexual harassment claim and for TNT on her wrongful termination claim.

On appeal, TNT claimed that the jury's verdict should be "reversed outright" because Missouri law and federal anti-discrimination statutes are "not designed to purge the workplace of vulgarity" or "punish for boorish or even vulgar workplace conduct." TNT concluded that Lynn’s sexual harassment claim was of the type that should be "filtered out of the court system."

The Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed and found that Gill’s conduct went beyond the harmless comments or boorish conduct of a supervisor directed at a female employee. The court also noted that TNT seemingly disregarded its own egregious behavior in ignoring Gill’s behavior and doing absolutely nothing to curb or punish Gill’s conduct, even though TNT supervisors and others in TNT’s chain of command knew of the conduct.

With respect to damages, the appellate court affirmed the award of $50,000 in compensatory damages, plus interest, and reversed the trial court’s judgment reducing Lynn’s punitive damage award. Substituting its own award for that of the trial court, the appellate court held that if Lynn would agree to a reduction in the amount of punitive damages from $6.75 million to $3.75 million, the case would be remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment in that amount, plus interest, on one-half that amount. Otherwise, the court held that the judgment for punitive damages would be reversed for a new trial.

Lynn v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc., Nos. WD 68096, WD 68135 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)