Janet Hurst v. Kansas City, Missouri School District
437 S.W.3d 327
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Janet Hurst (age 61) was a long‑time School Psychological Examiner (SPE) for the Kansas City, Mo. School District; in 2010 the District reconstituted the SPE role into an Educational Diagnostician (ED) and required all SPEs to reapply and interview for ED posts.
- The District held structured interviews scored by a four‑person panel; applicants’ interview scores alone determined hiring despite prior assurances that past performance would also be considered.
- Hurst scored 42% on the interview and was not hired; shortly thereafter the District offered her a fifth‑grade teaching position at a turn‑around school, which she declined and then retired; she later obtained other employment earning some income.
- Hurst sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging age discrimination based on elimination/reconstitution of the SPE role and the District’s failure to hire her as an ED; the jury awarded $247,083.78 in actual damages and $200,000 punitive damages; the trial court also ordered reinstatement.
- On appeal the District raised eight points: instructional error, submissibility (merits and punitive damages), damages/remittitur and mitigation, evidentiary rulings (admission of witness Levin and a draft Transformation Plan), and the trial court’s reinstatement order.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, denying the District’s points, found Hurst made a submissible MHRA claim (including punitive damages), and remanded for an attorneys’ fees hearing in favor of Hurst as prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hurst) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction (use of MAI 19.01 language) | MAI 19.01 modification was appropriate because multiple causes of damage were argued | MAI 19.01 is only for comparative negligence and was inapplicable; instruction misled jury | Modification permissible; even if inapplicable, no prejudice shown — no reversible error |
| Submissibility of MHRA claim (age discrimination) | Evidence showed age was a contributing factor: unexplained reconstitution, interview-only hiring, comments discouraging help to older SPEs, older SPEs disproportionately rejected | District argued legitimate, non‑discriminatory reorganization and interview scoring justified decisions | Sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence to make a submissible claim; verdict stands |
| Damages and mitigation / remittitur | Hurst claimed lost wages/benefits plus emotional distress totaling the award; she testified about earnings post‑retirement and non‑economic harm | District argued failure to mitigate (declined teaching job) and jury should deduct earnings; award excessive and exactly matched claimed economic loss despite other earnings | Failure to mitigate is an affirmative defense — District bore burden; Hurst made submissible showing of economic and non‑economic damages; remittitur denied as not an abuse of discretion |
| Punitive damages submissibility | Punitive damages supported by circumstantial evidence of willful/reckless discrimination (false explanations, hostile comments, interview results) | No clear and convincing proof of malicious, outrageous or reckless conduct | Evidence sufficient for submission; trial court properly denied JNOV on punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe 1631 v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 8 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for reviewing jury instructions and instructional error)
- Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict for submissibility review)
- DeWalt v. Davidson Serv./Air, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 491 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (standards for directed verdict and JNOV)
- Holmes v. Kansas City Mo. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 364 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (circumstantial proof may support punitive damages submission)
- Wright v. Barr, 62 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (MAI 19.01 modification may be used where multiple causes of damage exist)
- Lomax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 243 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (false employer explanation permits inference of discriminatory purpose)
- Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 213 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (reinstatement is preferred remedy for unlawful employment discrimination)