Edoho v. Board of Curators of Lincoln University
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 660
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Edoho was a tenured full professor at Lincoln University and was offered the Dean position with tenure and a base salary of $95,000 on July 1, 2006.
- On October 14, 2009, Edoho filed a two-count petition alleging salary-rule violations and breach of contract related to reassignment and compensation under Lincoln's policies.
- Count I claimed unilateral salary reduction upon reassignment violated University rules; Count II claimed breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to terms and compensation.
- The Board moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the trial court dismissed Count I as time-barred under MAPA §536.110.1.
- The trial court also dismissed Count II on grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to plead a §1983 claim; Edoho appealed seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAPA exhaustion and agency status | Edoho argued exhaustion is a defense, not jurisdiction; Lincoln Univ. was an agency under MAPA. | Board argued MAPA applies and the petition was time-barred as a contested case. | MAPA applicability hinges on agency status; Lincoln Univ. is not an agency if it has due-process procedures under §536.018. |
| Contested case and statute of limitations | Count I was not a contested case under MAPA, thus §536.110.1 does not apply. | University's final decision concerning salary is a contested case subject to MAPA limitations. | Lincoln Univ. not an agency for MAPA purposes; §536.110.1 does not bar Edoho's claims on its face. |
| Sovereign immunity and contract | Count II sounds in contract with implied covenant; sovereign immunity does not bar contract claims. | If Count II is tort-based, sovereign immunity would apply; the claim is not properly pleaded as contract. | Sovereign immunity does not bar contract-based covenant claims; Count II may proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ. of Mo., 863 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. banc 1993) (MAPA applicability to higher education agencies)
- Coleman v. Mo. Sec'y of State, 313 S.W.3d 148 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and jurisdictional distinction)
- McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (subject matter jurisdiction versus exhaustion of remedies)
- Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (distinction between jurisdiction and statutory defenses)
- Hagely v. Bd. of Educ. of Webster Groves School Dist., 841 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. banc 1992) (MAPA contested case definition)
- State ex rel. Yarber v. McHenry, 915 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. banc 1995) (MAPA and higher education exceptions)
- Sheehan v. Sheehan, 901 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. banc 1995) (affirmative defenses on motion to dismiss)
- City of Lake Saint Louis v. City of O'Fallon, 324 S.W.3d 756 (Mo. banc 2010) (affirmative defenses and dismissal standards)