DeWalt v. Davidson Service/Air, Inc.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 147
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff has a pituitary brain tumor causing headaches, fatigue, reading limitations, and a ninety-minute driving restriction, with reasonable accommodation available for local routes.
- Plaintiff notified supervisors of diagnosis and restriction; supervisor accommodated by assigning local routes prior to September 2007.
- Starting September 2007, defendant directed plaintiff to take over-the-road runs; plaintiff declined due to medical restriction and was disciplined.
- Plaintiff’s hours were reduced and eventually no work was assigned; he believed he was constructively terminated and signed a form claiming voluntary quit but crossed out and noted termination.
- Jury found no disability discrimination by company but did find defendant individually liable; damages awarded $7,500; plaintiff sought $133,198.50 in attorneys’ fees; trial court awarded $75,000; cross-appeal and remand follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination elements | Plaintiff proved disability, discharge, and causation. | Plaintiff failed to prove disability or discharge causation. | Plaintiff proved disability and constructive discharge; disability was a factor. |
| Jury instructions on disability and contributing factor | Instructions adequately defined disability and related terms. | Definitions should be explicit; roving commission risk. | No reversible error; instructions were proper given the statutory framework and accompanying converse instruction. |
| Plain-error or definitional issues with contributing factor | Clear meaning of contributing factor supported the claim. | Definitional gaps misled jury. | No plain error requiring reversal; contributing factor term understood by jurors. |
| Attorney’s fees preservation and amount on appeal | Trial court abused discretion by setting unreasonable, inadequately explained fees. | Fee issue not properly preserved for appeal. | Defendant's challenge not preserved; cross-appeal addresses fee calculation remandably. |
| Cross-appeal on attorney’s fees calculation | Trial court errors in calculating fees; should align with time expended and public policy. | Award Reasonableness insufficiently explained; not properly supported. | Remanded for findings of fact and law on fee calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keveney v. Mo. Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for denial of directed verdict and JNOV; submissible case required)
- Hervey v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections, 379 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2012) (discrimination elements and MAI instruction guidance)
- Gamber v. Mo. Dept. of Health and Senior Servs., 225 S.W.3d 470 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (constructive-discharge test; intolerable conditions and intent)
- Dierker Assoc., D.C., P.C. v. Gillis, 859 S.W.2d 737 (Mo.App. E.D.1993) (plain-error and instructional review guidance)
- Warren v. State, 291 S.W.3d 246 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (definitional guidance for jury instructions)
- Alhalabi v. Mo. Dept. of Natural Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (multifactorial analysis for attorney’s-fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (most critical fee-factor: degree of success)
- Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. banc 2009) (guideposts for calculating attorney’s fees; related vs unrelated claims)
- City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1986) (fees must not be simply proportional to damages)