Discrimination after Daugherty: are Missouri courts "contributing to" or "motivated by" the number of cases on the discrimination docket?

AuthorStogsdill, Amanda

Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights (1)

  1. INTRODUCTION

    For more than twenty years, Missouri courts have applied the federal McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to determine the outcome of a defendant's motion for summary judgment in claims of employment discrimination. (2) However, the Missouri Supreme Court recently abandoned the McDonnell Douglas framework in favor of a new method of analysis derived from a Missouri Approved Jury Instruction. This new analysis has become known as the "contributing factor" test.

    In the months since Daugherty, controversy has surrounded this standard. (3) Many defense attorneys claim that the "contributing factor" test significantly lowers the bar that a discrimination plaintiff must meet in order to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment. (4) Pre-Daugherty, plaintiffs had to prove the unlawful discrimination was a "motivating factor." (5) Among other procedural changes, plaintiffs in a post-Daugherty case must show the discrimination was a "contributing factor" in the challenged employment decision. (6) Employers argue that this perceived change puts them at a great disadvantage. (7)

    While it is true that the shift to a new method of analysis has lessened the burden on plaintiffs who are trying to keep their claim alive, whether the language of the test refers to "contributing factors" or "motivating factors" should be of little concern. This note will argue that the true concern with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Daugherty lies in the fact that a plaintiff is no longer required to rebut a defendant's reasons for the alleged discrimination in order to survive summary judgment. This significantly lessens the procedural burden placed on plaintiffs, which will likely result in more employment discrimination claims being heard in Missouri Courts.

  2. FACTS AND HOLDING

    After working as an officer with the police department of Maryland Heights, Missouri for eighteen years, Douglas Daugherty was terminated from his employment in November of 2002. (8) In firing Daugherty, the City of Maryland Heights maintained that Daugherty was unable to perform certain essential functions of his job after he began to suffer from complications resulting from an on-the-job accident. The City then gave Daugherty the option to take early disability retirement to avoid termination. (9) When Daugherty did not exercise that option, he was terminated. (10)

    Daugherty's physical problems started shortly after he began working as an officer in Maryland Heights when he was struck by a drunk driver while supervising an accident scene. (11) As a result, he sustained serious back injuries which kept him from working for over a year; however, he eventually he returned to active duty. (12) Approximately twelve years later, Daugherty was promoted to the rank of captain. (13) Shortly after this promotion, Daugherty missed several months of work due to complications from his prior back injury. (14)

    In 2002, after chronic absenteeism because of his injury, the City required Daugherty to undergo an examination by a physician to determine his "fitness for duty." (15) The Deputy Chief of Police for the City created a memorandum, to be used by the physician evaluating Daugherty, spelling out what the Deputy Chief believed were the essential functions of Daugherty's job. (16) In creating the memorandum the Deputy Chief used both the City's official position description, (17) as well as his own beliefs about what was required of an employee in Daugherty's position, many of which were significantly more demanding than those listed in the official description. (18) Despite the physical demands spelled out in the Deputy Chief's memorandum, other officers in the department testified that they viewed Daugherty's position as merely supervisory in nature, (19) making it highly unlikely that he would ever face a situation which would require such physical activities.

    After the evaluating physician determined that Daugherty was unable to perform the duties listed in the memorandum, the City terminated Daugherty's employment. (20) Upon learning of his termination, Daugherty met with his supervisor to discuss the decision. (21) Unknown to his supervisor, Daugherty made an audio recording of the conversation in which the supervisor stated "that the city administrator wanted to get rid of employees over the age of 55 because their salaries were costly to the City." (22) Daugherty told his supervisor that this was age discrimination, and the supervisor agreed. (23)

    After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Daugherty brought suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, alleging that he was terminated due to his age and perceived disability in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). (24) The City of Maryland Heights moved for, and was granted, summary judgment on the grounds that Daugherty's claim could not survive the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, because he failed to establish a prima facie case on his claims for both age and disability discrimination. (25)

    Daugherty appealed. (26) He claimed that the trial court erred in using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis in light of the adoption of Missouri Approved Instruction 31.24 in 2005. (27) The Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the lower court decision. Thus, the court upheld the application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to determine whether Daugherty's claim should survive summary judgment. (28)

    Daugherty then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the lower courts. (29) The Missouri Supreme Court's decision effectively nullified the use of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis for resolving motions for summary judgment in Missouri discrimination cases. (30) The court instead chose to employ the use of the language in the Missouri Approved Instruction to analyze the City's motion for summary judgment. (31) The court held that the standard used to evaluate motions for summary judgment should more closely reflect the language of the jury instruction and rely less on federal case law. (32)

  3. LEGAL BACKGROUND

    The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) makes it unlawful for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee because of the worker's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability. (33) An employee who believes her employer has acted in violation of the MHRA must file a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (Commission). (34) Once the employee files her complaint with the Commission, she may choose to adjudicate her claim through the administrative procedures set forth by the Commission, or she may request a right-to-sue letter from the Commission. (35) Once the Commission issues a right-to-sue letter, the employee may bring suit against the employer in an attempt to get equitable relief (such as job reinstatement), monetary damages, or both. (36)

    Several federal statutes also make discrimination in the workplace unlawful. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) makes it unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee because of the employee's race, color, sex, or national origin. (37) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee on the basis of a disability, (38) while the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes it unlawful to terminate an employee because of the employee's age. (39) When an employee believes she has been terminated unlawfully, pursuant to one of the above statutes she must file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (40) Once the complaint has been made, the employee can choose to adjudicate her claim through the EEOC's procedures or she may request a right-to-sue letter and thus, bring her suit in court. (41)

    An employee may, of course, bring claims under both the MHRA and one of the many federal statutes making discrimination in the workplace unlawful. Because both the federal and state statutes are closely related in interpretation and language, Missouri courts have often looked to federal case law to interpret the MHRA. (42)

    1. Federal Case Law

      One federal doctrine that the state courts consistently apply to cases under the MHRA is that which the United States Supreme Court announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. (43) Under what has become known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, a plaintiff was first required to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. (44) After the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant employer to rebut the plaintiff's claim by showing a non-discriminatory reason for the action taken. (45) Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the reason given by the defendant is merely a pretext for the discriminatory action. (46)

      In McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff brought suit against the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for alleged acts of racial discrimination. (47) The plaintiff claimed that the company had refused to rehire him "because of his race and color" and his participation in the civil rights movement, all in violation of Title VII. (48) The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims; (49) however, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. (50) In doing so, the Court of Appeals made an attempt to set forth guidelines for the lower court to follow in determining the outcome of the plaintiff's claim. (51) The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, noting that the three Court of Appeals judges demonstrated a "lack of harmony" in their attempt to set forth guidelines to address the issue and thus, created the burden-shifting analysis mentioned above. (52)

      The Supreme Court has returned to the decision in McDonnell Douglas on numerous occasions...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT