Hardin v. Adecco USA, Inc.
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 70
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hardin was discharged from Biomerieux on September 3, 2010, and filed an MHRA charge against Biomerieux on November 3, 2010 (alleging sex, race, and retaliation for acts through Sept. 3, 2010).
- Hardin later filed an MHRA charge against staffing agency Adecco on June 27, 2012, alleging retaliation for events between Sept. 3, 2010, and Jan. 23, 2012.
- Hardin sued Adecco, Biomerieux, and her supervisor in state court asserting gender, race, and retaliation claims against all three defendants.
- The trial court granted Adecco’s motion to dismiss, concluding Hardin failed to exhaust administrative remedies against Adecco by not filing an MHRA charge within 180 days; the court allowed amendment but held the 180‑day defect could not be cured.
- The trial court entered a Rule 74.01(b) certification that there was "no just reason for delay" as to dismissal of Adecco, and Hardin appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether that certification was justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction because trial court certified partial final judgment under Rule 74.01(b) | Hardin proceeded with appeal after certification; she contends dismissal of Adecco is appealable | Adecco argues certification was unjustified and appeal should be dismissed for lack of final judgment | Court held certification unjustified and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether dismissal of Adecco constituted disposition of a distinct judicial unit | Hardin argued claims against each defendant could be separately resolved | Adecco argued dismissal rested on a defense unique to Adecco (failure to exhaust) so it is a distinct unit | Court acknowledged dismissal appeared to dispose of a distinct unit but found other factors dispositive (see intertwined claims) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting Rule 74.01(b) certification without explanation | Hardin relied on certification and prior amendment attempts | Adecco argued trial court gave no reasons and certification should not be routine | Court concluded absence of explanation and the intertwined factual issues required de novo review and weighed against certification |
| Whether factual intertwinement of claims supports certification | Hardin alleged joint employment/integrated enterprise making defendants’ acts indistinguishable | Adecco maintained exhaustion defense unique to it justified immediate appeal despite intertwinement | Court found factual underpinnings sinuously intertwined (integrated enterprise allegations) and that piecemeal appeal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (final‑judgment rule and Rule 74.01(b) exception)
- Davis v. Shaw, 306 S.W.3d 628 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (factors and standard for Rule 74.01(b) certification)
- Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (court should explain certification reasoning)
- Saganis‑Noonan v. Koenig, 857 S.W.2d 499 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (absent explanation, appellate review of certification is de novo)
- Kinney v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 213 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (dismissal based on a defense unique to dismissed defendant can be a distinct judicial unit)
- Truman Bank v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 370 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (definition and effect of interlocutory judgment)
- Farrow v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. banc 2013) (procedural authority trial court may consider on revisiting dismissal)