919 F. Supp. 2d 1018
E.D. Mo.2013Background
- CHE and York moved for summary judgment as to Counts I–IV of Dowell’s counterclaim against CHE and York.
- Dowell’s counterclaims included unpaid wages, breach of contract, slander/libel, wrongful termination, and related theories; several counts were dismissed or withdrawn.
- Employment agreements with Dowell, Marcus Smith, and Laura Smith included non-waiver and fiduciary duties; Pilling’s agreement had non-compete/confidentiality terms.
- Defendants formed TriPoint while employed at CHE and provided services to TriPoint after termination, with no written permission for side work.
- CHE asserted that Dowell’s alleged bonus and wage claims were unsupported; Dowell claimed an incentive bonus existed and that wages were improperly withheld.
- The court ordered striking certain portions of Dowell’s declaration as inconsistent with prior testimony and granted CHE’s summary judgment motions on Counts I–IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dowell’s declaration portions should be struck | Dowell: statements are personal knowledge and admissible | CHE/York: paragraphs are speculative and contrary to deposition | Granted; paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and phrase in 21 struck |
| Whether Dowell’s unpaid wages claim is timely under Missouri law | Dowell: five-year limitation applies | CHE: §516.380 one-year limitation applies and claim untimely | Count I dismissed as untimely |
| Whether Dowell states a prima facie breach of contract | Dowell: bonus incentive and raise breach | CHE: no contract provision for guaranteed bonus; no meeting milestones evidence | Count II granted in CHE’s favor; breach claim dismissed |
| Whether Dowell’s slander/libel claim survives | Dowell: email damaged reputation; statements false | CHE: email true, privileged, and no proven damages | Count III/Count V dismissed; summary judgment for CHE |
| Whether Dowell’s wrongful termination claim survives | Dowell: termination for whistleblowing or illegal acts | CHE: termination for failure to attend mandatory meeting; no protected conduct shown | Count IV dismissed; no causal link shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court (1986)) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes require admissible evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court (1986)) (burden-shifting on summary judgment; movant must show lack of genuine issue)
- McSpadden v. Mullins, 456 F.2d 428 (8th Cir. 1972) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge; hearsay not allowed)
- Weitlauf v. Parkway Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 3925162 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (post-deposition testimony cannot validate contradictions lacking factual basis)
- Dixon v. Stoam Indus., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (misconduct and insubordination; definitions guiding defamation/termination analysis)
- Slavens v. William C. Haas Co., Inc., 563 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. App. 1978) (penalties under §290.110; limitation considerations)
- Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc. (STK I), 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (DMCA and reverse-engineering considerations; official reporter available)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (public policy as basis for wrongful discharge in Missouri; contract context)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) ( wrongful discharge when contract conflicts with public policy; extension to contract employees)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard; credibility not weighed)