Bowolak v. Mercy East Communities
452 S.W.3d 688
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bowolak, hired by Mercy in 2004 for manual labor roles, had a 2002 work-related back injury with a spinal fusion and a 32% permanent partial disability from a prior workers’ compensation settlement. He worked for Mercy without restrictions from 2004 until March 2011.
- After a January 2010 back incident, Mercy’s physician released Bowolak to full duty without restrictions; Mercy nevertheless denied some workers’ comp benefits and Bowolak filed a claim.
- In March 2011 Mercy presented an unsigned, 2003-dated “DRAFT” note allegedly limiting Bowolak’s lifting and then terminated him, offering no reassignment or medical reexamination.
- Bowolak sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for disability discrimination; a jury awarded $50,000 compensatory, $500,001 punitive damages, and the trial court awarded $81,500 attorneys’ fees.
- Mercy appealed challenging submissibility, punitive damages, evidentiary rulings, instructions, attorneys’ fees, and redaction of the workers’ compensation settlement amount; Bowolak cross-appealed the post-judgment interest rate.
- The appeals court affirmed in all respects, including (1) submissibility of MHRA disability discrimination and punitive damages claims, (2) reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, (3) exclusion/redaction evidentiary rulings, and (4) application of 5% post-judgment interest as akin to tort judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHRA disability discrimination submissibility | Bowolak argued he was disabled (actual, record of, or regarded as) and was discharged because of it | Mercy argued Bowolak was not legally disabled, was not discharged, or disability did not contribute to discharge | Court: Sufficient evidence for jury on disability (record/actual/regarded), discharge, and contributing-factor causation; submissible case affirmed |
| Punitive damages submissibility | Mercy’s conduct was outrageous and showed reckless indifference/evil motive | Mercy said insufficient evidence of outrageous conduct | Court: Evidence (old unsigned draft, Mercy’s conduct despite prior clear work history and medical releases) supported punitive damages submission |
| Punitive damages excessiveness | Award needed to punish/deter given conduct | Mercy argued award was unconstitutionally excessive | Court: Award within statutory cap and not grossly excessive under reprehensibility/disparity/comparables analysis |
| Evidence re: religious ownership/nonprofit | Mercy sought to present religious/nonprofit status to mitigate punitive damages | Mercy claimed such evidence relevant to punitive phase | Court: Exclusion proper; Mercy could present charitable/community activities; no prejudice shown |
| Jury instructions on disability | Bowolak used MAI-based instructions modified to require jury find disability | Mercy argued instructions created confusion or a roving commission; asked for constructive discharge instruction | Court: Instructions (including separate disability definition) were proper; no constructive discharge instruction required |
| Attorneys’ fees award | Bowolak sought fees; produced billing and affidavits | Mercy argued fee award excessive given partial/non-prevailing claims and records | Court: Trial court reasonably assessed factors, reduced request, and did not abuse discretion in awarding $81,500 |
| Redaction of WC settlement amount | Mercy argued settlement amount relevant to show extent of injury | Bowolak argued monetary amount prejudicial and not probative of restrictions | Court: Redaction proper; monetary figure had little probative value re: restrictions and risked unfair prejudice |
| Post-judgment interest rate | Bowolak argued 9% (non-tort statutory rate) applies | Mercy argued MHRA is tort-like, so Federal Funds Rate + 5% (effectively 5%) applies | Court: MHRA damages analogous to torts; 5% post-judgment interest affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (standards for submissibility and reviewing jury verdicts)
- Hervey v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 379 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. 2012) (MHRA instructional requirements when defendant contests legal disability)
- Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. 2009) (punitive damages under MHRA; standard of proof and factors)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (degree of success as critical factor in awarding attorneys’ fees)
- Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 408 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (review of punitive damages excessiveness)
- Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin Nat’l Auto Sales N., LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. 2012) (comparables and punitive damages review)
- Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. 2010) (trial court’s discretion weighing probative value against prejudice in evidence rulings)
- Diehl v. O’Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003) (MHRA damages analogous to torts for purposes of jury trial analysis)