Howard v. City of Kansas City
2011 Mo. LEXIS 10
| Mo. | 2011Background
- Melissa Howard sued the City of Kansas City under the MHRA for discrimination when the city council refused to appoint any nominee from a Caucasian-women panel to fill a municipal judge vacancy.
- The charter requires the Municipal Judicial Nominating Commission to submit a panel of three nominees; the council must appoint from that panel within 60 days or choose not to fill the vacancy.
- The commission submitted three Caucasian women, including Howard, on Oct. 30, 2006; the council rejected the panel at two meetings (Nov. 9 and Dec. 14, 2006) with votes 7–6 and then refused to act again after the panel expired.
- Public statements at council meetings criticized the lack of diversity on the panel, with multiple remarks indicating race and representation influenced the decision.
- Howard testified about emotional distress, weight loss, sleep issues, and ongoing career concerns; the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages against the City.
- The trial court entered judgment for damages, attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest; the City appealed on several points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHRA applicability to council decision | Howard argues MHRA covers the employment decision by the council. | City contends council decision is not an employment action and MHRA does not apply to public-official recruitment. | MHRA applies to the council decision. |
| Whether municipal judges are 'employees' under MHRA | Howard contends judges are employees; the City contends otherwise. | City argues judges are public officials or independent contractors, not MHRA employees. | Kansas City municipal judges are employees under MHRA. |
| Punitive damages against a municipality under MHRA | Howard asserts MHRA permits punitive damages against municipalities where egregious conduct occurred. | City relies on Chappell that punitive damages against municipalities require explicit authorization. | Punitive damages are recoverable against a municipality under MHRA. |
| Preservation of future damages issue | Future damages were properly submitted and supported by evidence. | Future-damages issue was not preserved or properly argued. | Issue not preserved for review; procedural default governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 1 S.W.3d 555 (Mo.App.1999) (independent contractor status limits MHRA standing)
- Winebrenner v. City of Kansas City, 499 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.1973) (agency/control factors used in workers' comp context)
- Chappell v. City of Springfield, 423 S.W.2d 810 (Mo.1968) (punitive damages generally not available against municipalities absent explicit statute)
- Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101 (Mo.App.2006) (MHRA punitive damages against political subdivisions recognized by the court of appeals)
- Kline v. City of Kansas City, 175 F.3d 660 (8th Cir.1999) (MHRA punitive damages against municipalities not explicit; need explicit authorization)
- Kearney v. City of Simpsonville, 209 S.W.3d 483 (Ky.App.2006) (public officials as employees under KCRA; broad statutory interpretation)
- Thompson v. City of Austin, 979 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.App.1998) (public officials not always MHRA-like employees; Title VII context)
- Bredesen v. Tenn. Judicial Selection Comm'n, 214 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn.2007) (public officials not employees under THRA; aligns with public-official exclusion)