Hill v. City of St. Louis
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 588
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hill and Hughes, African American deputy sheriffs, sued the City of St. Louis and Sheriff Murphy under MHRA for hostile work environment and retaliation.
- Jury found in plaintiffs' favor on hostile work environment; Hill awarded $25,000 and Hughes $125,000 in actual damages; punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff.
- Trial court remitted punitive damages to $75,000 per plaintiff and awarded plaintiffs over $326,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- White deputies allegedly used racial slurs, assigned African-American deputies to harder jobs, seating was segregated, and racially disparate discipline occurred.
- A hangman’s noose was displayed in the Civil Courts building; supervisors later characterized it as a prank, while plaintiffs complained but investigations were insufficient.
- Both parties appealed; the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, including remittitur and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closing argument on Sheriff Murphy’s liability | Connote that Murphy had no personal liability; collateral source rule not applicable. | Argument misstates law and injects finances into liability stage. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; argument permissible. |
| admissibility of Dr. Dowden-White as expert | Testimony aided understanding of noose symbolism and discrimination. | Field of history outside 490.065 scope; credibility not for expert. | Court did not abuse discretion; testimony allowed as specialized knowledge. |
| admissibility of Ann Plunkett as expert | EEOC guidance and HR practices help evaluate mitigation and response to harassment. | Tests law or invades jury’s province; HR/law scope questionable. | Expert testimony proper; did not misstate law; not outside 490.065 scope. |
| Jury instructions on hostile environment | Instructions properly directed as to conduct under MHRA. | Some instructions misstated law or gave roving authority. | Court did not err in instructions; objections not preserved. |
| Remittitur of punitive damages | Remittitur improper; damages were justified. | Remittitur appropriate under totality of circumstances. | Remittitur within court’s discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Call v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993) (broad discretion over closing arguments)
- Rytersky v. O'Brine, 70 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. 1934) (collateral source relevance limits; improper to argue defendant won’t pay)
- Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Ind., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo.App.1992) (expert testimony on complex matters allowed to explain practices)
- George Weis Co., Inc. v. Dwyer, 956 S.W.2d 335 (Mo.App.1997) (procedural testimony on bonds/enforcement admissible if helps define conduct)
- Oneida Indian Nation of Wis. v. State of N. Y., 732 F.2d 261 (2d Cir.1984) (recognizes expert history testimony in appropriate contexts)
- Stone v. Missouri Dept. of Health and Senior Services, 350 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for determining necessity of expert testimony)
- Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. banc 2009) (factors for reasonable attorney’s fees; prevailing party considerations)
- Next Day Motor Freight, Inc. v. Hirst, 950 S.W.2d 676 (Mo. App. 1997) (fee-shifting considerations and hours expended)
- Howard Const. v. Teddy Woods Const., 817 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. App.1991) (court’s expertise on attorney’s fees)
- St. Louis University v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. banc 2009) (preservation of evidentiary objections)