Claus v. Intrigue Hotels, LLC
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1777
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Claus, age 63, was fired from Intrigue Hotels' Park Place Hotel in Kansas City in December 2007 after Intrigue acquired the property in 2004.
- Galaviz became head of housekeeping in October 2007 and terminated Claus, replacing her with a 31-year-old employee.
- Claus had a spotless 23-year employment record prior to termination and had not been warned about performance problems.
- Claus filed an MCHR discrimination charge and received a Right to Sue notice; she filed suit in September 2008 alleging age discrimination under the MHRA.
- A bifurcated trial in August 2009 awarded Claus $50,000 in actual damages and $150,000 in punitive damages; Copidas was favored, Innrigu e Hotels challenged the verdicts on multiple grounds.
- The court affirmed the judgment and remanded to determine appellate attorney’s fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence shows age as a contributing factor to Claus's termination. | Claus argues age contributed to discharge. | Intrigue contends performance/ROF reasons justified firing. | Yes; jury could find age contributed to termination. |
| Whether the punitive damages award is supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Claus contends conduct showed evil motive or reckless indifference. | Intrigue argues evidence does not support punitive damages. | Yes; punitive damages upheld based on age-based firing and pretextual reasons. |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded Thiessen's financial-condition testimony. | Exclusion harmed Claus's ability to cross-examine on finances. | Thiessen lacked personal knowledge; records not produced pre-punitive phase. | Yes; exclusion affirmed as within court's discretion. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying remittitur of punitive damages. | Remittitur requested due to allegedly excessive punitive award. | Discretion to award punitive damages rests with jury; no abuse shown. | No abuse; remittitur not warranted. |
| Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 107 or in excluding other evidence about non-discriminatory reasons. | Exhibit 107 business-record foundation was adequate. | Foundation insufficient; McHale not shown to have adequate knowledge. | Exhibit 107 properly excluded; other evidentiary ruling not reversible. |
| Whether the jury instruction after deadlock improperly coerced a verdict. | Instruction was coercive and improper. | Instruction modeled on MAI-CR; not coercive. | Not coerced; instruction proper under standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (MHRA discrimination includes age; no requirement that age be the sole factor.)
- Stanley v. JerDen Foods, Inc., 263 S.W.3d 800 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (MAI 31.24 elements for age-discrimination submission.)
- Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (Evil motive or reckless disregard may support punitive damages.)
- Alhalabi v. Missouri Dep't of Natural Res., 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (Agency knowledge imputed to corporation for punitive-damages analysis.)
- Peters v. ContiGroup, 292 S.W.3d 380 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (Abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings.)
- Arrington v. Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc., 266 S.W.3d 856 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (Discovery/evidence admissibility framework.)
- Brown v. Cedar Creek Rod & Gun Club, 298 S.W.3d 14 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (Remittitur and punitive-damages review, abuse-of-discretion standard.)
- Garner v. Jones, 589 S.W.2d 66 (Mo.App. W.D.1979) (Non-unanimous verdicts do not show coercion.)
- Nash v. Plaza Electric, Inc., 363 S.W.2d 637 (Mo.1962) (Unanimity necessity in some verdict contexts; non-coercive inference.)