602 S.W.3d 216
Mo. Ct. App.2020Background
- Christine Pitcher, a Missouri resident, was Acaria’s director of a Lenexa, Kansas pharmacy; Centene is Acaria’s Missouri-based parent.
- In July 2016 Pitcher objected internally to a “virtual transfer” that would make an out-of-state shipment appear billed from the Kansas pharmacy for Medicaid reimbursement (Daraprim; ~$54,000/month supply).
- After escalating her compliance concerns (emails to internal management and Centene compliance), Pitcher received a “Last Chance Agreement,” was later placed on leave, and was terminated by phone while at her home in Missouri on December 1, 2016.
- Appellants contemporaneously offered a Separation Agreement; Pitcher sued in Missouri for common-law retaliatory discharge under Kansas law.
- A jury found for Pitcher (compensatory and large punitive damages); the trial court then awarded front pay. Appellants appealed, raising jurisdiction, employer status, submissibility, evidentiary rulings, and front-pay issues.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Acaria | Pitcher: Acaria discharged her while she was in Missouri and caused Missouri injury; Acaria purposefully availed itself of Missouri | Acaria: Decision made outside Missouri; mere communication to Missouri resident insufficient for long-arm jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction proper—discharge notice and consequences occurred in Missouri; Acaria had minimum contacts (employees, business activity, policies) |
| Centene liability as employer | Pitcher: Centene controls policies, HR, personnel files and participated in termination; is joint/employer | Centene: Holding company with no employees; no evidence it terminated Pitcher | Court: Evidence supported jury finding Centene was an employer/joint-employer (policies, HR control, separation agreement naming Centene) |
| Submissibility of retaliatory-discharge claim | Pitcher: Reasonable person could conclude the virtual transfer violated Kansas Medicaid regs; reporting was known and termination was retaliatory | Appellants: No violation shown; Centene not involved in firing; legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (leaving pharmacy) | Court: Claim submissible—evidence supported elements (reasonable-prudent-person, knowledge, causation; termination motive could be pretext) |
| Admissibility of Separation Agreement | Pitcher: Agreement was routine, not a settlement offer; relevant to employer identity and corporate practice | Appellants: It was an offer of settlement and prejudicial | Court: No abuse of discretion in admission—evidence showed the package was routine and not a compromise of an existing controversy |
| Exclusion of ADT security report | Appellants: ADT report rebuts Pitcher’s denial of leaving pharmacy unsecured | Pitcher: Report was late discovery; surprise prejudice | Court: Issue not preserved (no offer of proof); exclusion as sanction not abused given discovery timing and uncertainty who would authenticate/report |
| Front pay—pleading, availability, and amount (to retirement age) | Pitcher: Entitled to front pay; remedy tried by consent and equitable relief for irreparable employment harms | Appellants: Not pleaded; jury shouldn’t decide; front pay unnecessary given compensatory/punitive awards and speculative to retirement age | Court: Front pay was tried by implied consent; court (equity) properly awarded front pay and did not abuse discretion in amount or awarding to retirement age |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in civil cases)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to trial court fact findings on jurisdiction; ultimate legal question reviewed de novo)
- Bryant v. Smith Interior Design Group, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. banc 2010) (extraterritorial acts producing consequences in Missouri qualify under §506.500)
- State ex rel. PPG Indus., Inc. v. McShane, 560 S.W.3d 888 (Mo. banc 2018) (distinguishes communications received generally from direct individualized contacts for long-arm purposes)
- Goodman v. Wesley Medical Center, L.L.C., 78 P.3d 817 (Kan. 2003) (elements for Kansas retaliatory-discharge whistleblower claim)
- Rebarchek v. Farmers Co-op. Elevator, 35 P.3d 892 (Kan. 2001) (retaliatory-discharge standard and discussion of temporal proximity/causation)
- Knitter v. Corvia Military Living, LLC, 758 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2014) (joint-employer test: co-determination of essential employment terms, termination power)
- Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. banc 2009) (front pay is equitable; reinstatement preferred; front pay reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Salitros v. Chrysler Corp., 306 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard: awarding front pay and amount reviewed for abuse of discretion)