Hervey v. Missouri Department of Corrections
2012 Mo. LEXIS 166
Mo.2012Background
- Ms. Hervey, a Missouri probation officer, disclosed a mental health disorder on return to work in 2007 and sought accommodations, receiving some but not all requested adjustments.
- She was placed on probation for nine months; at its end the department terminated her for unsatisfactory performance and allegedly due to disability-related issues.
- Ms. Hervey sued alleging disability discrimination under MHRA and retaliation; trial contested whether she was legally disabled.
- The trial court admitted Ms. Hervey’s verdict-directing instruction (No. 8) without an explicit separate disability element; the department proposed an alternate instruction to require a separate disability finding.
- Jury awarded Ms. Hervey actual damages and punitive damages (later bifurcated); the trial court reduced damages and awarded $1,303,632.50 in punitive damages; the department appealed.
- This opinion holds that the verdict-directing instruction failed to require a separate disability finding and reverses, remanding for a new trial; it also addresses punitive-damages calculation under § 510.265.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict No. 8 required a separate disability finding | Hervey contends No. 8 did not require disability as an element | Department argues No. 8 assumed disability and deprived Hervey of an essential element | Verdict-directing instruction was prejudicial error; reversed and remanded |
| Whether the punitive-damages calculation properly used the net judgment amount | Hervey argues attorney fees are included in net judgment per § 510.265 | DOC contends including fees is correct under the statute and prior interpretations | Calculation correct; punitive damages upheld as properly based on net judgment including attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Lasky v. Union Elec. Co., 936 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. banc 1997) (verdict-directing errors when essential elements are not stated separately)
- Spring v. Kansas City Area Transp. Auth, 873 S.W.2d 224 (Mo. banc 1994) (essential elements must be separately presented to jury)
- Harvey v. Washington, 95 S.W.3d 93 (Mo. banc 2003) (verdict-directing errors creating prejudice by assuming disputed facts)
- AgriBank FCB v. Cross Timbers Ranch, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 256 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (affirmative converse curing defect; distinguishable from present case)
- Reed v. Reed, 10 S.W.3d 173 (Mo. App. 2000) (attorney lien context for net judgment calculations)